California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cahill, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 5 Cal.4th 478, 853 P2d 1037 (Cal. 1993):
Furthermore, an overly broad reversible-error rule, mandating reversal even in circumstances in which it is clear the error did not affect the judgment, may in practice operate to weaken or diminish the basic constitutional right that is sought to be protected by the rule. As then-Justice Traynor explained for this court in People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378, 386, 33 Cal.Rptr. 497, 384 P.2d 1001, in rejecting the adoption of a reversible-per-se rule with regard to the erroneous admission of evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search or seizure: "A reversal for the admission of illegally obtained evidence without regard for prejudice when there is compelling legally obtained evidence of guilt constitutes nothing more than a penalty, not for the officer's illegal conduct in securing the evidence, but solely for the
Page 604
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.