Court Opinion

ID: 9789697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:40:09.961495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:07.717018
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
concurring specially and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority and dissent only from the equal protection analysis of Part I of the majority opinion.
With respect to the equal protection issue, I agree with the California Supreme Court in its incisive analysis in Hawkins v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.3d 584, 150 Cal. Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916, which opinion is reproduced in full in the dissent herein of Justice Bistline.
I further believe the trial judge, Judge Bengtson, was correct when he wrote:
Had the defendant in the case at bar sought, following the return of the indictment and before or at the time of the entry of his plea, an order granting him a postindictment preliminary hearing (as the defendants did in both Hawkins and Freeland) and had the State been unable to demonstrate a coherent, systematic policy relating to the selection of the indictment process for the prosecution of the above entitled cases and refused to conduct a preliminary hearing upon defendant’s motion or application, it is likely that the indictments in these cases would have been dismissed by this Court.