California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 723, 79 P.3d 1030 (Cal. 2003):
Defendant also argues that because Penal Code section 1202.1 implicates the interests of third parties (the victims who might be exposed to HIV infection), an express finding of probable cause and docket notation are mandatory, from which it follows that appeal is not subject to forfeiture. (See, e.g., In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 739, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 267.) Defendant cites no authority that this consideration is relevant under the general forfeiture principle. On the contrary, third party interests do not constitute a recognized exception, which is limited to deprivation of certain fundamental constitutional rights or acts in excess of jurisdiction. (See People v. Vera, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 276, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 754, 934 P.2d 1279; cf. People v. Adames (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 198, 211, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 [the defendant did not object at trial but challenged HIV testing order as ex post facto law].)
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.