California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ramirez, 6 Cal.App.4th 1583, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 529 (Cal. App. 1992):
More importantly, however, are the distinctly different grounds for reconsideration involved in Madril and its progeny as contrasted with the grounds asserted in this case. In Madril, the People sought reconsideration because they failed to present evidence at the first hearing due to "haste and inadvertence." In stark contrast, the People in this case had a compelling reason to request reconsideration due to the trial court's admitted legal error in applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard to the issue of consent. The People did not attempt to offer additional evidence in order to secure a different ruling but merely requested the court to apply the appropriate legal standard to the evidence already presented at the special hearing. Nor did the People request the court simply to reanalyze the evidence using the same legal standard in the hopes that after reweighing the evidence the court would arrive at a different conclusion. This case is thus distinguishable from those circumstances in which a trial court simply reaches a different conclusion after reconsidering the factual basis for a prior ruling. (See, e.g., People v. Leighter, supra, 15 Cal.App.3d 389, 93 Cal.Rptr. 136 [trial judge reconsidered motion where he believed he might have been hasty and perhaps mistaken in originally denying it].)
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.