California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. A-1 Roofing Service, Inc., 151 Cal.Rptr. 522, 87 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. 1978):
3 The People suggest that if "the defense posture" did not constitute proper grounds for a demurrer the defense procedure would have been to make a pretrial motion to dismiss. (Murguia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286, 293, fn. 4, 124 Cal.Rptr. 204, 540 P.2d 44.) Then, the People suggest, the trial court's "purported ruling" would properly be characterized as a judgment sustaining motion to dismiss. Presumably, this argument is made to suggest, somewhat elliptically, that the appeals are proper under Penal Code section 1466, subdivision (1), subsection (a) dealing with judgments terminating actions prior to a defendant being placed in jeopardy. All of this is interesting, but hypothetical. There was nothing "purported" about the trial court's evidentiary rulings rejecting the taking of judicial notice in response to the People's motions that such notice should be taken. No pretrial motion, a la Murguia, was made by any of the defendants. And, it is patent that in at least two of the cases there was no question that the trial had already been embarked upon, since the People made other evidentiary offers aside from the request to take judicial notice. The People wisely refrain from expressly suggesting the appeals lie under subdivision (1), subsection (a) of Penal Code section 1466.
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.