# Mitchell v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · October 1, 1958 · 50 Cal. 2d 827

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533423

## Case

- **Full name:** MARTHA MITCHELL Et Al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 1, 1958
- **Citations:** 50 Cal. 2d 827; 330 P.2d 48; 1958 Cal. LEXIS 197
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Carter
- **Judges:** Traynor, Carter, McComb
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533423

## Opinion text

CARTER, J.
I concur in the views expressed in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Traynor. In Priestly v. Superior Court, ante, p. 812 [ 330 P.2d 39 ] I have expressed my views somewhat at length on the right of a defendant in a criminal case to cross-examine a witness on a material issue.
Defendant contends that the denial of the right of cross-examination in this case was a denial of a constitutional right. In the Priestly case I concluded that in the preliminary hearing the accused was denied a constitutional right of a fair hearing where the magistrate denied him the right of *831 cross-examination on a disputed factual issue and on which the outcome of the proceedings hinged. The factual issue disputed in the Priestly case was the presence of probable cause for the arrest and search. In this case defendant does not dispute that there was probable cause for the arrest and seizure, but only desires to know the informants’ identities to better prepare his defense at the trial. This is precisely what defendant will receive. However, it is readily apparent that the testimony of the police officers relating the information given by the informants is not crucial to the issue of whether there is any competent evidence to hold defendant. It cannot be said, therefore, that the denial of defendant’s right of cross-examination amounted to a denial of a fair hearing or to deprivation of his liberty without due process of law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533423. Public record. Not legal advice.