People v. Uribe
199 Cal. App. 4th 836
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2006 Uribe was convicted of multiple sex offenses against his granddaughter Anna; the 2008 Court of Appeal reversed the judgment due to Brady nondisclosure of a SART video.
- On remand, Uribe moved to recuse the Santa Clara DA’s Office and to dismiss the information on double jeopardy and outrageous prosecutorial misconduct grounds; the court denied disqualification, denied double jeopardy dismissal, but granted dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct.
- The trial court found deputy DA Troy Benson lied in hearings on the motions and concluded egregious prosecutorial misconduct justified dismissal of the information.
- The People appealed the dismissal order, arguing the remedy was improper; this court agreed the dismissal was unwarranted and reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
- Evidence on remand showed Valley Medical began videotaping SART exams around 1991; the center’s videotapes were kept for training and backup, not used in examinations, and there was no proven pre-2006 conspiracy to withhold them from defense.
- Authorship and knowledge about the SART video were contested; the court found Benson alone engaged in misconduct, but declined to find a broader conspiracy or prejudice impacting Uribe’s retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for outrageous conduct was proper | Uribe argues the misconduct warrants dismissal to remedy due process violations. | People contend dismissal is improper absent proven prejudice to a fair trial. | Dismissal was not warranted; prejudice not shown. |
| Whether there was prosecutorial misconduct requiring remedy | Uribe asserts Benson’s false testimony and deceit harmed due process. | People maintain misconduct was limited and did not prejudice the retrial. | Substantial misconduct occurred, but it did not support dismissal as the remedy. |
| Standard of review for a nonstatutory dismissal appellate review | Uribe contends independent review should apply to mixed questions of fact and law. | People contend deferential review suffices for factual findings with some legal application. | Independent review applies to the due process analysis; the court conducted proper independent assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (due process focus on trial fairness over prosecutorial culpability; evidence suppression requires prejudice or materiality)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1952) (shock the conscience standard for substantive due process)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1989) (particular amendment provides protection; avoid making substantive due process claim when explicit rights apply)
- Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1991) (supervisory powers to dismiss outrageous government conduct; requires substantial prejudice or lack of lesser remedies)
- Simpson II, 927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1991) (supervisory powers—drastic remedy; must consider prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions)
- Uribe v. People, 162 Cal.App.4th 1449 (Cal. App. 2008) ( Brady disclosure by prosecution team constitutes reversible error; SART video deemed favorable to defense)
- Morrow v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.4th 1252 (Cal. App. 1994) (egregious prosecutorial misconduct can warrant dismissal when it taints proceedings)
- Moore v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.App.3d 437 (Cal. App. 1976) (interference with attorney–client relationship as due process violation; not directly applicable here)
- Barber v. Municipal Court, 24 Cal.3d 742 (Cal. Supreme Court, 1979) (significant intrusion into counsel communications can violate due process; distinguishable fact pattern)