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):
Analogizing to Penal Code section 1385, defendant contends these procedural directives are conditions precedent to a valid order. Section 1385, subdivision (a), authorizes a trial court to dismiss an action "in furtherance of justice" but requires that "[t]he reasons for the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes." Courts have long held that "`[t]he statement of reasons is not merely directory, and neither trial nor appellate courts have authority to disregard the requirement.'" (People v. Orin (1975) 13
[6 Cal.Rptr.3d 728]
Cal.3d 937, 944, 120 Cal.Rptr. 65, 533 P.2d 193 (Orin).) As we explained in Orin,"The underlying purpose of this statutory requirement is `to protect the public interest against improper or corrupt [fn. omitted] dismissals' and to impose a purposeful restraint upon the exercise of judicial power `"lest magistral discretion sweep away the government of laws."' [Citations.]" (Ibid.) Thus, the reasons cannot be "merely inferable" from the record because that does "not fulfill the purpose of the statute that the court indicate why its dismissal is `in furtherance of justice' but on the contrary leaves the record vague and subject to speculation as to the reasons for the court's action." (Id. at pp. 944-945, 120 Cal.Rptr. 65, 533 P.2d 193, fn. omitted.)[6 Cal.Rptr.3d 728]
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.