If a trial court orders testing without articulating its reasons on the record, will the appellate court presume an implied finding of probable cause?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Butler, 31 Cal.4th 1119, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 730, 79 P.3d 1036 (Cal. 2003):

As these principles of appellate review apply to Penal Code section 1202.1, if the trial court orders testing without articulating its reasons on the record, the appellate court will presume an implied finding of probable cause. (See People v. Stowell, supra, 31 Cal.4th 1107, at pp. 1114-1116, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 727-728, 79 P.3d at pp. 1033-1034.) Nevertheless, because the terms of the statute condition imposition on the existence of probable cause, it can sustain the order only if it finds evidentiary support, which it can do simply from examining the record. Moreover, even if the prosecution could have established probable cause, in the absence of sufficient evidence in the record, the order is fatally compromised. (See People v. Guardado (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 757, 765, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 81.) Indeed, even in the case of an express finding of probable cause, the question being one of law rather than fact would be considered de novo on appeal. (Cf. People v. Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 908-909, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 62 P.3d 45.)

Other Questions


Does the jury instructions that the trial court relied on in its tentative order and in its final order deny defendant's petition that the jury must find that the killing was committed with either express or implied malice or otherwise implied malice? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for an appellant to appeal against a finding that the trial court exercised its discretion not to grant a certificate of probable cause? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for establishing probable cause for an action without probable cause? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How will the Court of Appeal interpret the implied findings of fact made by a trial court in support of an order? (California, United States of America)
What are the findings of the trial court on a motion for a new trial where a jury was not adversely affected by an audio recording that was secretly recorded during jury deliberations? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.