## Facts

- Massey Harushi Haraguchi was charged in 2005 with raping an intoxicated person in Santa Barbara County.
- Deputy District Attorney Joyce Dudley was assigned as lead prosecutor.
- Dudley authored a novel, *Intoxicating Agent*, depicting a prosecutor deciding whether to try a rape case involving an intoxicated victim.
- The novel was published shortly before Haraguchi’s trial was scheduled to begin.
- Dudley promoted the book locally through bookstore events and television interviews around the time the prosecution was pending.
- Haraguchi moved to recuse Dudley under Penal Code § 1424, asserting her literary and promotional interests created a personal conflict and made a fair trial unlikely, including by allegedly influencing plea negotiations.
- The trial court denied recusal, finding the overlap was coincidental, the book was unrelated to Haraguchi’s case, and the publication and promotion were not prejudicial.
- The Court of Appeal granted mandate relief and ordered recusal, applying independent judgment rather than deferring to the trial court.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to address the proper appellate standard and whether recusal was required on these facts.

## Issues

1. What standard of appellate review applies to a trial court’s ruling on a prosecutorial recusal motion under Penal Code § 1424: abuse of discretion or independent judgment?
2. Whether a prosecutor’s authorship and promotion of a novel with thematic similarity to a pending prosecution establishes a conflict of interest that makes it unlikely the defendant will receive a fair trial, requiring recusal under § 1424.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that appellate review of § 1424 recusal rulings is deferential and limited to abuse of discretion.
- The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s use of independent judgment, even where the trial court lacked directly on-point precedent.
- Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the Court concluded the record supported the trial court’s finding of no disqualifying conflict and no “unlikelihood of a fair trial.”
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment granting mandate relief and ordering recusal.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutors are public fiduciaries obligated to pursue justice impartially; when a genuine conflict compromises that duty, recusal may be required.
- Under Penal Code § 1424, the moving party bears the burden to show (1) a genuine conflict of interest and (2) that the conflict is so serious it is unlikely the defendant will receive a fair trial.
- Trial courts should not interfere with the People’s choice of prosecutor absent a demonstrated genuine conflict meeting the § 1424 standard.
- Appellate courts review a trial court’s ruling on a § 1424 recusal motion for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the trial court’s factual assessments and overall determination.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that § 1424 prosecutorial recusal decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and held that a prosecutor’s authorship and promotion of a thematically similar novel, without a demonstrated genuine conflict making a fair trial unlikely, does not require recusal.


Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 4th 706 (Cal. 2008)