RICHTER v. PEOPLE (1970)

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Albert RICHTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL COURT DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, State of California, Defendant and Appellant; The PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 12412.

Decided: June 10, 1970

Bradford & Stanley, by Jerome Stanley, Sacramento, for petitioner and respondent. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, and Daniel J. Kremer, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent-real party in interest-appellant.

This is a companion case to Childress v. Sacramento Municipal Court District, 87 Cal.Rptr. 383.

The facts and procedural background are essentially the same and repetition is not necessary.

The People also bring this appeal from the order of the superior court finding the seized films not obscene, and restraining the district attorney and municipal court from prosecuting the respondent for a violation of section 311.2 of the Penal Code. The People raise the same two arguments on appeal as they did in Childress.

Our decision herein is necessarily controlled by our holding in Childress, page 383.

Accordingly, the order granting the writ of prohibition is reversed, and the case is remanded to the municipal court.

REGAN, Associate Justice.

PIERCE, P.J., concurs.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network