Does a defendant have a right to a jury determination of the existence of the fact and "validity" elements of a motion to strike the special circumstance allegation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Curl v. Superior Court, 276 Cal.Rptr. 49, 51 Cal.3d 1292, 801 P.2d 292 (Cal. 1990):
It also follows that both the People and the defendant have a right to a jury determination of the existence of the "fact" and "validity" elements. Therefore, the defendant may not effectively deprive the People of their right by means of a pretrial motion to strike the special circumstance allegation pursuant to People v. Coffey (1967) 67 Cal.2d 204, 60 Cal.Rptr. 457, 430 P.2d 15, and People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal.3d 909, 206 Cal.Rptr. 707, 687 P.2d 904. He may, of course, seek to set aside the allegation prior to trial by means of a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995. Under that procedure, it is he who bears the burden of proof: to prevail, he must show that the allegation is not supported by "reasonable or probable cause" (see Pen.Code, 995, subd. (a)).
Page 59
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
