California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Larry C., In re, 134 Cal.App.3d 62, 184 Cal.Rptr. 505 (Cal. App. 1982):
The Kurland modification requires the trial court to determine whether the material omission was either (1) reasonable, (2) negligent, or (3) recklessly inaccurate or intentionally misleading. As the court stated, "That the omission itself was 'intentional' rather than inadvertent may be relevant to those issues, but may not alone be dispositive." (People v. Kurland, supra, 28 Cal.3d 376, 388, 168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213.) The court concluded "... Something more than mere intent to omit is required to justify the conclusion that statements that do appear in the affidavit may not be trusted." (Ibid.)
In this case the trial court found the omissions were not intentional. Although it did not say so, by inference it is clear that it found the omissions to be negligent. We agree. "Negligent omissions of material fact occur when the affiant is unreasonably ignorant of facts, unreasonably forgets to include them, or makes a good faith but unreasonable decision that they need not or should not be included. In such case the 'add and retest' formula ... is proper." (People v. Kurland, supra, 28 Cal.3d 376, 388, 168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213.)
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.