Opinion ID: 2632541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of the In Limine Ruling

Text: Defendant claims that although the judgment of dismissal was technically appealable, the Court of Appeal improperly considered the underlying in limine ruling. Defendant urges the People could obtain appellate review of that ruling only in conjunction with a defense appeal following her conviction. (§ 1252.) [6] The prosecution's right to appeal in a criminal case is strictly limited by statute. ( People v. Williams (2005) 35 Cal.4th 817, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 29, 110 P.3d 1239.) Long standing authority requires adherence to these limits even though the the People may thereby suffer a wrong without a remedy. ( People v. Superior Court (Howard ) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 499, 72 Cal.Rptr. 330, 446 P.2d 138.) The circumstances allowing a People's appeal are enumerated in section 1238. The People relied on subdivision (a)(8) of section 1238, which allows appeal from [a]n order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating all or any portion of the action including such an order or judgment after a verdict or finding of guilty or an order or judgment entered before the defendant has been placed in jeopardy or where the defendant has waived jeopardy. The trial court dismissed the action in the interest of justice under section 1385 before jeopardy attached. The question here is the permissible scope of review on the People's appeal. Both defendant and the People agree that the in limine ruling was the focus of the People's appeal. The subsequent dismissal merely followed the People's declared inability to proceed because of the in limine ruling. The Court of Appeal reasoned that if the case against Chacon goes forward to trial, the entrapment by estoppel defense is allowed, and she is acquitted, the People could not appeal because jeopardy would have attached. This places the People in an impossible position because they could not have obtained appellate review to determine whether the defense of entrapment by estoppel is cognizable. The Court of Appeal properly relied on the long-established rule that if a trial court dismisses a case because the People announce they cannot proceed in light of a pretrial ruling, the prosecution may appeal the dismissal, and, as part of the appeal, challenge the underlying ruling. This rule, extending back three decades, finds its origin in a line of cases in which trial courts granted non-statutory suppression motions, then dismissed the actions after the People announced they were unable to proceed. On appeal of the dismissal, these courts concluded that the merits of such suppression rulings were cognizable. ( People v. Dewberry (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 175, 181-185, 114 Cal.Rptr. 815; People v. Mills (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 652, 654-655, 210 Cal.Rptr. 669; People v. Angeles (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1203, 1209-1211, 218 Cal.Rptr. 756; People v. Yarbrough (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1650, 1652-1656, 278 Cal. Rptr. 703) ( Yarbrough ).) In Yarbrough, the Court of Appeal noted the general rule that in limine rulings are not binding because the trial court has the power to reconsider, modify or set aside its order before submission of the cause. ( Yarbrough, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 1655, 278 Cal.Rptr. 703.) This general rules applies to the prosecution as well as defense. ( Ibid. ) Nevertheless, the Yarbrough court observed that exceptions to the general rule exist, including the circumstance in which in which a prosecutor accepts a dismissal of the charge in order to obtain review of the ruling on appeal. As the Yarbrough court explained, this exception is recognized by the Dewberry-Angeles-Mills line of cases upholding review of an adverse evidentiary ruling on an appeal [of a dismissal] by the People where that ruling renders the People unable to proceed to trial. [Citations.] The court in Dewberry reached that conclusion commonsensically: `It would have little meaning if the court could consider only the technical correctness of the order of dismissal but not review the reason behind it, especially where the two are intertwined.' [Citation.] Allowing appellate review in such a case makes sense for another reason as well: review by writ of prohibition or mandate does not lie. (See, e.g., People v. Municipal Court (Ahnemann ) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 658, 660 [117 Cal. Rptr. 20, 527 P.2d 372].) A final reason for following Dewberry, Angeles and Mills jumps out: the need for consistency and clarity in the definition of reviewable questions on an appeal by the People pursuant to section 1238, subdivision (a)(8). ( Id. at pp. 1655-1656, 278 Cal.Rptr. 703.) There is no reason to disturb this well-established rule: When the trial court dismisses the case because the prosecution announces it is unable to proceed as a result of a pretrial ruling, the People may appeal the order of dismissal under section 1238(a)(8) and by this means seek review of that ruling underlying the dismissal. [7] An appeal under section 1238, subdivision (a)(8) is an election of remedies. ( People v. Dewberry, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at pp. 183, 114 Cal.Rptr. 815.) To obtain appellate review of a pretrial ruling, the prosecution must suffer a dismissal. If the appeal fails, the prosecution is precluded from refiling the case. If, pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), the people prosecute an appeal to decision, or any review of such decision, it shall be binding upon them and they shall be prohibited from refiling the case which was appealed. (§ 1238, subd. (b), italics added.) Nevertheless, defendant argues that the prosecution should not have been able to force a dismissal to obtain review of the pretrial ruling here because that ruling was merely tentative and did not affect the prosecution's case-in-chief. As we shall explain below, the ruling was not tentative. It was a final decision to recognize a novel defense. As to the ruling's impact, the prosecution must evaluate the effect of the ruling on its ability to succeed at trial. Faced with an adverse ruling, the prosecution has two choices: (1) accept the ruling and proceed to trial knowing that, once jeopardy has attached, an adverse ruling may never be appealed; or (2) accept a dismissal and appeal the ruling, knowing that if the ruling is upheld on appeal the case will never go to trial. Either choice entails significant risk. When the People determine they cannot proceed, the trial court may permit the People's election of remedies by dismissing the case. [8] The Legislature has given the trial court the power to dismiss under the broad standard of justice[,] [citation] and there would be no reason to further detain or harass the defendant by insisting the case continue in some form of vacuum when the People are unable to continue. ( People v. Dewberry, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at p. 185,114 Cal.Rptr. 815.) Here, on appeal of the dismissal under section 1238(a)(8), the Court of Appeal properly considered the merits of a ruling permitting the assertion of a novel defense.