Petitioner injured person sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court of San Joaquin County to set aside its order sustaining respondent driver's refusal to answer certain written interrogatories and to enter an order requiring the driver to answer those interrogatories. The injured person had filed a negligence and wrongful death action against the driver.

The injured person brought an action to recover damages for injuries she received while a passenger in an automobile which was being operated by her deceased husband and which was involved in an accident with the driver's automobile. The injured person also brought an action for the wrongful death of her husband. The injured person served written interrogatories on the driver. The covering letter provided that the interrogatories were continuing so as to require supplemental answers if the driver obtained additional information between the time the answers were served and the time of trial. The ADA defense attorney driver objected to and refused to answer certain interrogatories. The injured person filed a motion to compel the driver to answer the interrogatories. The trial court sustained the driver's refusal to answer the interrogatories, and the injured person sought a mandamus to set aside the order. The court sustained the driver's objections to interrogatories which were irrelevant, but held that the driver should have answered interrogatories concerning insurance and policy limits, names of witnesses, reports, photographs, witness statements, and the driver's account of the accident.

The court granted the injured person's petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the driver to answer certain interrogatories.

Appellant juvenile offender challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which sustained a petition that declared appellant a ward of the court and found him guilty of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245(a). Appellant based his challenge on an alleged conflict of interest in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

Appellant juvenile and another minor were charged with robbery. Prior to the adjudication hearing the co-defendant's attorney joined the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. Appellant was found to be a ward of the court and guilty of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245(a). He challenged the judgment on the grounds that the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, because of an alleged conflict of interest, could not have properly participated in the proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. The court ruled that just because the co-defendant's attorney went to work for the 400-person district attorney's office did not mean there was a conflict of interest with respect to appellant. The court noted that there was no evidence that the attorney had any confidential information about appellant's defense or that, if he did, he shared it with the attorney who prosecuted appellant. The court held there was neither real nor apparent impropriety.

The appellate court affirmed the judgment against appellant juvenile offender. The court found that appellant failed to prove that any conflict of interest arose from the fact that his co-defendant's attorney became a deputy district attorney prior to adjudication of appellant's case such that the district attorney's office should not have participated in the proceedings.