Supreme Court of California

Defendant's conviction is affirmed on grounds that the statutory provisions pertaining to battery on a custodial officer do not violate the equal protection clause of the state or federal Constitution, and the trial court did not err in denying a hearing regarding the admissibility of polygraph evidence.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/29/2004
• Published 07/29/2004

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
•  Anthony J. Dain, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Eric R. Larson, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.,  Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. De Nicola, Jaime L. Fuster and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent., Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney (Orange), Brian N. Gurwitz, Deputy District Attorney;  Jan Scully, District Attorney (Sacramento), Albert C. Locher, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney;  Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles), George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney;  and David R. LaBahn for California District Attorney's Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.