![]() Here the prosecutor was not deliberately holding back such charge but was simply awaiting the sifting of the evidence by an expert, Professor Hurt. Harassment, in the sense of Kellett, supra, is not present in the instant case here the defendant (as well as the court) was aware of the prosecutor's intention to investigate the possibility of charging manslaughter. Inapplicability of Kellett to Instant Case I requested of the court that because of the implications of the case that there were deaths involved, that my office was still under investigation - still investigating the case, that the record should be properly preserved and requested of the court that the plea be taken with a full tall waiver even though that is not the normal procedure in the court on an infraction case this being so, that the court would be protecting the record for defense as well as the people in this matter." The discussion with the judge was not on the record as no reporter was present - it was, the deputy district attorney stated, a "personal request I made to the judge when we advised him that he (Battle) would be entering a plea. The deputy district attorney declared that, "I did have discussions with the judge. 2d 822, and the legal implications of a plea defense counsel then informed the prosecutor that he wished to plead nolo contendere to the infraction charged. Before June 10, 1974, the deputy advised the defendant and his attorney that the matter was under further investigation by his main office and that his office might further prosecute the defendant for manslaughter. Before J(when defendant plead nolo contendere), he was informed that the California Highway Patrol had referred the case to a Sergeant Meyers in its central office and that the sergeant was consulting Dr. He referred the matter to his main office for their review of the facts, probably on May 7, 1974. The deputy concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a successful manslaughter prosecution. The officer furnished such investigation report before the complaint was filed. ![]() ![]() "The deputy district attorney who filed the infraction complaint had been considering a charge of vehicular manslaughter against the defendant and had asked Thomas to investigate further. An excerpt from People v Battle, if anyone was interested: ![]() The woman in the video read 2 sentences from someone's blog and thought she knew how law works. It may have been stated better elsewhere but essentially the case of People v Battle does not conclude that a traffic infraction is not a crime, how ever in that particular instance it doesnt imply that a traffic infraction should automatically lead to a vehicular manslaughter charge. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |