Kling v. Super. Ct.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Filed 11/17/10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA RANDOLPH CLIFTON KLING, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE SUPERIOR COURT ) OF VENTURA COUNTY, ) ) Respondent; ) ) THE PEOPLE, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) ____________________________________) S176171 Ct.App. 2/6 B208748 Ventura County Super. Ct. No. 2005045185 THE COURT: MODIFICATION OF OPINION The opinion filed October 18, 2010, published at 50 Cal.4th 1068, is modified as follows: 1. On page 1080, insert the following new footnote 3 at the end of the second full paragraph: 3/ We recommend that the Judicial Council review the relevant rules of court to determine whether any revisions might be appropriate or helpful in light of our decision in the present case. 2. The final sentence on page 1080 is modified to read: Kling is correct that this proceeding does not present an opportunity for expansive proclamations 1 regarding implementation of Marsy s Law, but we do agree with the People that a victim s right to notice of a third party subpoena would be consistent with the prosecution s right to due process. This modification does not affect the judgment. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.