Spaccia v. Superior Court
209 Cal. App. 4th 93
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Spaccia petitions for writ of mandate challenging denial of recusal of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting her in a Bell City case involving misappropriation and related contracts.
- The indictment charges Rizzo and Spaccia with misappropriation and conflicts of interest tied to Randy Adams’s hire as Bell’s police chief and related contracts, purportedly hidden from the City Council.
- Spaccia’s recusal motion rested on two items: her declaration that Adams spoke with District Attorney Cooley about the contract and an Adams civil- suit excerpt alleging DA involvement in Adams’s hiring.
- The trial court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied recusal “at this time,” concluding no sufficient conflict existed to disqualify the DA’s Office.
- Spaccia sought mandamus relief; this court held Cobra Solutions inapplicable to criminal cases, reviewed the Penal Code 1424 standard, and ultimately denied the writ petition.
- The court emphasized new evidence submitted with the writ petition could not be considered since it was not before the trial court, and affirmed denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard governing recusal of a district attorney | Spaccia argues Cobra Solutions applies | Cobra Solutions applicable only to civil cases | Cobra Solutions inapplicable; 1424 governs criminal recusal |
| Existence of a conflict under Penal Code 1424 | Spaccia alleges actual/apparent conflict due to DA’s involvement | No evidence of likelihood of unfair treatment | No likelihood of unfairness; no disqualification of the office |
| Necessity of an evidentiary hearing | Evidentiary hearing needed to obtain Adams’s testimony | Hearing not necessary absent prima facie showing | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no prima facie basis for a hearing |
| Consideration of new evidence not before the trial court | writ petition relies on new material evidence | Evidence not before trial court cannot be considered | Petition denied; new evidence not considered in ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Greer), 19 Cal.3d 255 (Cal. 1977) (recusal power; conflict must affect fair trial; precedents for disqualification)
- Younger v. Superior Court, 77 Cal.App.3d 892 (Cal. App. 1978) (appearance of impropriety and walling off conflicted prosecutors; not controlling in criminal cases post-1424)
- Cobra Solutions, Inc. v. City of San Francisco, 38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006) (civil recusal; informs limits of appearance-based disqualification)
- People v. Vasquez, 39 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2006) (Penal Code 1424 standard focuses on likelihood of unfair treatment)
- Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (Cal. 2008) (continuing application of 1424 standard in criminal matters)
- People v. Eubanks, 14 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1996) (two-step 1424 analysis: conflict existence and likelihood of unfairness)
- Stark v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.4th 368 (Cal. 2011) (1424 limits on disqualification; confirms standard)