7/27/2019 The PEOPLE v. Mary Brunner (June 12, 1973)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-people-v-mary-brunner-june-12-1973 1/1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARY THERESA BRUNNER, Defendant and

Respondent

Crim. No. 22125

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two

32 Cal. App. 3d 908; 108 Cal. Rptr. 501; 1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 1026

June 12, 1973

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] A petition for a rehearing was denied July 11, 1973, and

appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 8, 1973.

PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. A 277393-A and A 277393-B,

George M. Dell, Judge.

DISPOSITION: The order dismissing the indictment and restraining Brunner's further prosecution

for the Hinman murder is affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The state sought review of the order of the Superior Court,

Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed an indictment against respondent

individual and permanently restrained the state from prosecuting her for murder in a case

where respondent had been promised immunity from prosecution for murder in return for 

her testimony about the murder.

OVERVIEW: Respondent individual was granted immunity from prosecution in return for 

testimony. At the trial of a second defendant, respondent invoked her privilege against self-

incrimination and her testimony from the first trial was introduced. Respondent was indicted

for murder. The trial court dismissed the indictment and permanently restrained the state

from prosecuting her. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held the dismissal order 

sufficiently set forth its reasons and was valid under Cal. Penal Code § 1385. The court held

the state was estopped from arguing noncompliance with the Cal. Penal Code § 1324 

requirements for immunity because it granted immunity with knowledge of the statute; the

state was bound to the agreement although respondent did not keep her part of the bargain at

the second trial because the state achieved their sought-for convictions. The court rejectedthe contention that respondent waived her immunity by involving her privilege against self-

incrimination because waiver would apply only if there had been compliance with § 1385,

and there was no technical waiver of respondent's rights where the state received their 

 bargained-for convictions.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order dismissing the indictment and permanently

restraining the state from indicting respondent individual where she was granted immunity

in return for her testimony because the state was bound by the agreement, although it did not

comply with the immunity statute and although respondent asserted her Fifth Amendment

rights at a second trial, because the state achieved their bargained-for convictions.