Title: Kling v. Super. Ct.

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

1 
Filed 11/17/10 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
RANDOLPH CLIFTON KLING, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Petitioner, 
) 
 
 
) 
S176171 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/6 B208748 
THE SUPERIOR COURT  
) 
OF VENTURA COUNTY, 
) 
 
) 
 
 
Respondent; 
) 
Ventura County 
 
 
) 
Super. Ct. No. 2005045185 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Real Party in Interest. 
) 
 
 
____________________________________)  
 
THE COURT: 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
The opinion filed October 18, 2010, published at 50 Cal.4th 1068, is modified 
as follows: 
1.  On page 1080, insert the following new footnote 3 at the end of the second 
full paragraph:   
“3/  We recommend that the Judicial Council review the relevant rules of court 
to determine whether any revisions might be appropriate or helpful in light of our 
decision in the present case.”   
2.  The final sentence on page 1080 is modified to read:  “Kling is correct that 
this proceeding does not present an opportunity for „expansive proclamations 
 
 
2 
regarding implementation of Marsy‟s Law,‟ but we do agree with the People that a 
victim‟s right to notice of a third party subpoena would be consistent with the 
prosecution‟s right to due process.”    
This modification does not affect the judgment.