Richter v. Municipal Court (1970)

[Civ. No. 12412. Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District. June 10, 1970.]

ALBERT RICHTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SACRAMENTO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest and Appellant

(Opinion by Regan, J., with Pierce, P. J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel J. Kremer, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Bradford & Stanley and Jerome Stanley for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

REGAN, J.

This is a companion case to Childress v. Municipal Court, ante, page 611 [87 Cal. Rptr. 383]. [8 Cal. App. 3d 617]

The facts and procedural background are essentially the same and repetition is not necessary.

The People also bring this appeal from the order of the superior court finding the seized films not obscene, and restraining the district attorney and municipal court from prosecuting the respondent for a violation of section 311.2 of the Penal Code. The People raise the same two arguments on appeal as they did in Childress.

Our decision herein is necessarily controlled by our holding in Childress, supra, ante, page 611.

Accordingly, the order granting the writ of prohibition is reversed, and the case is remanded to the municipal court.

Pierce, P. J., concurred.