# People v. Gray

> California Supreme Court · August 25, 2005 · 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 451

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788529

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIO LEWIS GRAY, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 25, 2005
- **Citations:** 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 451; 37 Cal. 4th 168; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 10483; 118 P.3d 496; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7651; 2005 Cal. LEXIS 9351
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baxter
- **Judges:** Werdegar, Baxter, Chin
- **Cited by:** 368 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/9788529

## Opinion text

BAXTER, J., Concurring.
I concur with the majority and have also signed Justice Chin’s concurring opinion. To the extent that People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528 , 2 P.3d 1081 ], which I authored, suggests that the work product rule would bar a prosecutor from commenting on the defendant’s failure to call defense experts who had examined forensic evidence relevant to the case, it merits reexamination. (See United States v. Grammer (9th Cir. 1975) 513 F.2d 673, 676 .)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788529. Public record. Not legal advice.