Kellett motions - Revision history

Sysop at 05:12, 30 May 2025

2025-05-30T05:12:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:12, 30 May 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:

	California Criminal Procedure § 12:8		California Criminal Procedure § 12:8

			Appellate courts have adopted two different tests under Kellett to determine whether multiple offenses occurred during the same course of conduct… Under one line of cases, multiple prosecutions are not barred if the offenses were committed at separate times and locations. (People v. Douglas (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 594, 599 (no bar to multiple prosecution where each offense had a separate beginning, duration, and end, none of which overlapped); People v. Ward (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 130, 136 (no bar to multiple prosecution where crimes were committed at different locations, at different times, against different victims, and with different objectives); People v. Cuevas (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 620, 624 (no bar to multiple prosecution for offenses committed at different times and at different places); cf. People v. Britt (2004) 32 Cal.4th 944, 955 [multiple prosecutions barred where registered sex offender moving from one county to another failed to notify both counties of his change in residence].) …
			A second version of the test … looks to the evidence necessary to prove the offenses. (People v. Flint (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 333 …) ‘[I]f the evidence needed to prove one offense necessarily supplies proof of the other, […] the two offenses must be prosecuted together, in the interests of preventing needless harassment and waste of public funds.’ (People v. Hurtado (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 633, 636 …) ‘The evidentiary test of Flint and Hurtado requires more than a trivial overlap of the evidence. Simply using facts from the first prosecution in the subsequent prosecution does not trigger application of Kellett.’


			People v. Hendrix, 20 Cal. App. 5th 457, 463–464, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 (2018).

			See, e.g., In re Dennis B., 18 Cal. 3d 687, 135 Cal. Rptr. 82, 557 P.2d 514 (1976); People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1975); People v. Ward, 30 Cal. App. 3d 130, 105 Cal. Rptr. 67 (2d Dist. 1973).

	==Infractions==		==Infractions==

Sysop at 18:43, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T18:43:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 29 October 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:

	''Barriga v. Superior Court'' (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 739.		''Barriga v. Superior Court'' (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 739.

			California Criminal Procedure § 12:8

	==Infractions==		==Infractions==

Sysop: Created page with " ''Kellett v. Superior Court'' (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822. ''People v. Lohbauer'' (1981) 29 Cal.3d 364, 373. ''People v. Bas'' (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 989 ''People v. Flint'' (1975..."

2019-09-03T01:22:45Z

Created page with " ''Kellett v. Superior Court'' (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822. ''People v. Lohbauer'' (1981) 29 Cal.3d 364, 373. ''People v. Bas'' (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 989 ''People v. Flint'' (1975..."

New page

''Kellett v. Superior Court'' (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822.

''People v. Lohbauer'' (1981) 29 Cal.3d 364, 373.

''People v. Bas'' (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 989

''People v. Flint'' (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 333, 337.

''People v. Davis'' (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 558.

''Barriga v. Superior Court'' (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 739.

==Infractions==

''In re Dennis B.'' (1976) 18 Cal.3d 678

Penal Code section 1387.

Failure to make a Kellett motion both before and after Prelim is IAC. (''People v. Witcraft'' (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 659.)