California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bradley, 159 Cal.App.3d 399, 205 Cal.Rptr. 485 (Cal. App. 1984):
Although the minute order containing the dismissal declares the motion to dismiss was made by the district attorney, it is apparent the court dismissed the case on its own motion. Earlier, the court declined to order dismissal as a sanction for failure to preserve the bloodstains, but it indicated it would consider dismissing the case in order to preserve the record for appeal. Later, the district attorney indicated he could not proceed in light of the court's ruling on the Hitch motion and suggested that the proper procedure to preserve the issue for appeal was for the court to dismiss the case pursuant to section 1385, relying upon People v. Dewberry (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 175, 114 Cal.Rptr. 815. Thereupon, without motion from the district attorney, the court dismissed the case pursuant to section 1385. Although the minute order does not set forth the specific reasons for the dismissal (other than the district attorney's inability to proceed), the reporter's transcript sufficiently illuminates the reasons therefor. (See People v. Harris (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 859, 861-862, 133 Cal.Rptr. 352.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.