Legalese

March 21, 2023 11:47 AM

Lawyers of Mefi: What does a case being dismissed "in the interests of justice" suggest, in a US domestic (California) context?

An individual was charged with murder but the case was dismissed "in the interest of justice". The person in question has some behavioral health, possibly cognitive impairments, if that matters. Outside of this particular case, law enforcement has a history of engaging this person around minor trespassing and disturbing the peace type issues only. What would this information suggest to you? Obviously, you can't provide any specifics for this particular case. I'm looking to understand the usual connotations of this phrase within the legal world. Google is only sort of helpful.

posted by latkes to Law & Government (1 answer total)

Best answer: I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney. This is not legal advice. To the extent this case or one like it may involve you or your rights, you should seek representation from an attorney, preferably one more familiar with California criminal law and procedure.

As I understand the relevant California law, "the interests of justice" is also referred to as "in furtherance of justice", as that is the phrase used in Cal. Penal Code § 1385(a). There are some cases, such as People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal. 4th 497 (1996) that will refer to "the interests of justice", but that is not the statutory language.

Here is a 2018 appellate court case with an overview of the process:

Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a), provides in relevant part, "The judge or magistrate may ... of his or her own motion ... and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal shall be stated orally on the record. The court shall also set forth the reasons in an order entered upon the minutes if requested by either party or in any case in which the proceedings are not being recorded electronically or reported by a court reporter...."
...
"`[T]he language ..., "furtherance of justice," requires consideration both of the constitutional rights of the defendant, and the interests of society represented by the People, in determining whether there should be a dismissal. ... At the very least, the reason for dismissal must be `that which would motivate a reasonable judge.' ..." (People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, 945-946

People v. Onesra Enterprises, Inc., 24 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 9 (2018).

People v. Orin appears to be the principal California Supreme Court case on this point, and the court discussed the concept at some length, beginning at about page 944. You may find that helpful.

Presumably the court in the case you are asking about gave some explanation for its decision. If the decision was a very recent one, the record may not yet be available, but that's what I would look to for some specific reasoning.
posted by jedicus at 12:31 PM on March 21, 2023 [9 favorites]