Discovery, generally
Category > Discovery, generally
Updated 2/26/2024The trial court erred in denying a capital defendant posttrial access to exhibits for lack of good cause under section 1054.9.Defendant asked the superior court to release ballistics evidence for expert testing in preparation of filing a habeas corpus petition following a death sentence in his capital case. The trial court denied the request under Penal Code section 1054.9, which governs discovery in these habeas proceedings. Specifically, the court found defendant failed to show good cause to support his request. However, court exhibits are public documents and defendant had the right to inspect them. The court erred in denying defendant access to the exhibits for lack of good cause under section 1054.9.id: 26283
Updated 2/26/2024Work-product protection applies in capital habeas proceedings after an order to show cause.Defendant argued in his habeas petition that the jury in his capital case impermissibly considered the opinion of an alternate juror. The superior court later ordered that he produce the statements of any alternate jurors he interviewed. Contrary to defendant’s claim, discovery in habeas proceedings following an order to show cause may exceed the scope of the criminal discovery scheme. However, the qualified work-product protection applies to discovery beyond that scope, and at this juncture of the proceedings precludes the superior court’s discovery order.id: 26434
Updated 2/24/2024The trial court erred by instructing the penalty phase jurors that the defense had committed discovery violations and the jurors could consider those violations.The trial court erred by instructing the jurors at the penalty phase of defendant’s capital trial that the defense had committed discovery violations and the jurors could consider that fact in its deliberations. The instruction also impermissibly set forth another nonstatutory aggravating factor. id: 27317
Updated 2/23/2024The trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after the prosecution presented a CHP officer with a new theory without giving defense any discovery in violation of Penal Code section 1054.Defendant was convicted of murder of three people in a drunk driving incident. The critical issue at trial was whether defendant’s drinking was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The police and highway patrol both concluded the deceased driver was the primary cause. The prosecution later called a second member of the highway patrol who advanced a theory regarding defendant’s drinking and speeding making him responsible for the accident. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s failure to provide the defense with discovery of the witness’s notes and information used to form his opinion.id: 26873
Updated 2/1/2024The trial court erred by refusing to review or release relevant jail calls that had been subpoenaed by the defense.Defendant subpoenaed audio recordings of the van driver’s jailhouse phone calls. The trial court erred by refusing to review the records (because it would have taken too long) or release them to defense counsel.id: 27914
Case was remanded so the trial court could exercise its discretion to dismiss a section 667, subd. (a) prior serious felony conviction enhancement.Defendant was convicted of residential burglary, and his sentence was enhanced by five years due to a prior conviction under Penal Code section 667, subd.(a). However, his sentence was remanded under SB 1393, effective January 1, 2019, which gives trial courts discretion to strike a prior serious felony conviction for sentencing purposes. id: 25943
The trial court erred by imposing sanctions on trial counsel who failed to disclose the name and statements taken from a witness called by the codefendant.The trial court imposed a $950 sanction on trial counsel in a two-defendant joint criminal trial for violating a reciprocal discovery order. The court found counsel failed to disclose to the prosecution the name and statements taken from a witness called by the codefendant. However, counsel had no general obligation to disclose information he expected to come from a witness called by the codefendant. The order imposing sanctions was reversed.id: 26046
Capital defendant was entitled to a postconviction discovery order to preserve potentially discoverable materials relating to crimes described during the penalty phase.The capital defendant was entitled under Penal Code section 1054.9 to an order preserving potentially discoverable materials in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities relating to all crimes discussed at his trial, whether at the guilt or penalty phase. The trial court erred by failing to order preservation of those materials.id: 25711
Social media providers may be required to divulge subpoenaed communications that were intended to be public.Defendants facing murder and gang-related charges sought public and private communications from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter created by the homicide victim and a witness. The social media providers moved to quash the subpoenas asserting the federal Stored Communications Act prevented them from disclosing the requested information. A provider may divulge a communication with the lawful consent of the originator. Communications that were intended to be public fall within the lawful consent exception and must be provided. Restricted communications, even those sent to numerous recipients, do not fall within the exception. The matter was remanded so the parties could develop a record of the specific matters sought and the applicability of the lawful consent exception.id: 25674
The superior court has jurisdiction to grant a motion to preserve evidence relating to a capital case pending appeal. A superior court has jurisdiction to grant a motion to preserve evidence relating to a capital case then pending review on automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court. However, it’s authority is limited to evidence potentially discoverable under Penal Code section 1054.9, which establishes a mechanism for postconviction discovery. id: 25120
Defendant’s “actual costs” for postconviction discovery under section 1054.9 include cost of labor to copy and materials, but not the cost of a paralegal examining and preparing the documents.Penal Code section 1054.9 provides for postconviction discovery for defendants sentenced to death or life without possibility of parole. Defendants must pay the “actual costs of examination or copying.” The defendant need not pay for costs related to examination and preparation of documents, but must pay the labor cost for the person copying the documents and a proportional share of equipment costs, copies, ink, paper or compact disc.id: 24501
The trial court erred in finding the location from which the officer viewed the drug transaction was privileged under section 1040 and by concluding it was not material information.Defendant was convicted of drug possession and the case was based largely on the observations of a police officer who declined to reveal the exact location of his observation. The trial court erred by finding the location was privileged under Evidence Code section 1040 and that it was not material for purposes of section 1042. The privilege cannot be upheld where the transcript reviewed at the in camera hearing provided no information about the location or why secrecy was necessary. Moreover, knowledge of the claimed location was key to the effective cross-examination of the officer and the court’s refusal to allow its disclosure denied defendant a fair trial.id: 23111
The magistrate had the authority to grant defendant’s request for discovery of materials related to a suppression motion. The superior court panel ruling on the prosecution’s writ petition erred by finding the magistrate lacked the authority to order discovery of materials defendant deemed necessary to litigate his suppression motion at the preliminary hearing. id: 22092
The trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could consider defendant’s discovery violation.The trial court erred by instructing the jurors that defendant failed to timely disclose evidence offered by a defense expert witness and they could consider that fact. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.id: 22046
The trial court erred in denying as untimely a section 1054.9 motion for postconviction discovery.Penal Code section 1054.9 permits a defendant who has been sentenced to either death or life imprisonment without parole to obtain discovery of materials to which he or she would have been entitled at the time of trial if the defendant shows good faith efforts to obtain such materials from trial counsel were unsuccessful. A trial court may not deny, as untimely, a section 1054.9 motion for discovery.id: 22022
Section 1054.9 which governs postconviction discovery in capital cases is valid even though passed without a super majority because it does not amend Prop 115.In 2002, acting with less than a two-thirds majority, the Legislature enacted Penal Code section 1054.9, which requires a court to order that a defendant under a sentence of death or life without parole be provided postconviction discovery in specified circumstances. The provision is valid even though passed without a two-thirds majority. It does not amend Proposition 115 because that provision governs only pretrial discovery and does not prohibit postconviction discovery of the kind that section 1054.9 provides.id: 21506
Prosecutor’s subpoenas to state hospitals for records of SVP candidates failed to include a necessary statement of materiality.The district attorney filed SVP petitions against five defendants. The DA then subpoenaed the prison and state hospital for medical and psychological records. However, the subpoenas duces tecum were ineffective because each failed to include a declaration containing a sufficient statement of materiality as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985, subd.(b). If the subpoenas are properly prepared, the DA is entitled to a court order releasing state hospital staff from obligations under HIPPA to maintain confidentiality of the records.id: 21134
If the trial court holds a hearing under section 1326 to determine whether defendant is entitled to subpoenaed documents, the prosecution is entitled to be present but has a limited role.Penal Code section 1326 requires that documents produced in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena duces tecum be delivered to the court clerk. The court may order in camera hearings to determine whether defendant may receive the documents. In People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, the court held the prosecutor must receive notice of the hearing but did not define the prosecutor’s role at the hearing. Absent unusual circumstances, the prosecutor may not know who or what was subpoenaed unless the defendant decides to use them at trial. The prosecutor is then entitled to reciprocal discovery . At section 1326 hearings, the prosecutor is silent unless the court has questions which is likely to occur when the subpoena concerns privacy rights of third parties.id: 21179
The trial court erred by giving CALJIC No. 2.28 regarding the late disclosure of statements given by defense alibi witnesses.On the second day of trial, the prosecutor complained that defense counsel did not provide timely disclosure of statements given by alibi witnesses. Defense counsel responded that his investigator had interviewed the witness a month earlier but was late in getting his report to defense counsel. The court found the defense had not attempted to gain a tactical advantage by withholding disclosure. Nevertheless, the court instructed with CALJIC 2.28 that "defendant" failed to timely disclose evidence and that fact can be used against him. First the instruction was partially inaccurate as the error was made by defense counsel rather than the defendant. Moreover, the jurors were never told what to do about the error. They may have concluded they could convict defendant because of the discovery violation. The instruction should have informed the jurors the violation, by itself, was insufficient to convict. The error was prejudicial where the prosecutor's case was not overwhelming.id: 17856
CALJIC 2.28 which informed the jury of the defense discovery violation is problematic as it invites speculation and offers no direction, but it was harmless where the credibility challenge would otherwise have been made.Because of defendant's late disclosure of two alibi witnesses, the court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.28 regarding the late disclosure of discovery by the defense, and the fact that the discovery violation could be considered by the jury. The instruction is being increasingly recognized as problematic as it encourages speculation, offers insufficient direction, and injects matters of compliance with pretrial procedures into the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Use of the instruction in the present case was harmless because it was merely a vehicle for credibility challenges that would have been made even absent the instruction.id: 18048
The trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury on late defense discovery to the prosecution.At the prosecution's request, the trial court instructed with CALJIC No. 2.28 on late defense discovery to the prosecution. However, the record failed to show defendant was personally responsible for any delay. The instruction also told the jurors to evaluate the weight and significance of the discovery violation without any guidance on how to do so. The error required reversal of the forgery conviction where it was reasonably probable the defendant may have achieved a more favorable result absent the instruction.id: 18033
Following a death or LWOP judgment defendant preparing a habeas petition is entitled to discovery of certain requested materials in the possession of the prosecution.Those who seek discovery under newly enacted Penal Code section 1054.9 because they are preparing to file or have filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a death or life without possibility of parole judgment should first make the discovery motion in the superior court that rendered the judgment. Either party may later challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal. Section 1054.9's discovery includes specific materials possessed by the prosecution or law enforcement in three categories: 1) materials the prosecutor provided at trial but are lost to defendant, 2) materials the prosecutor should have provided at trial, or 3) materials defendant would have been entitled to at trial had he or she specifically requested them. Had defendant requested evidence regarding his behavior in prison, the prosecution would have been obligated to provide them if it possessed them.id: 17769
Reciprocal discovery provisions of Prop. 115 do not apply to a probation revocation hearing.The Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provisions set forth in Penal Code section 1054 do not apply to a probation revocation hearing, and thus a probationer has no obligation to provide discovery to the prosecution in such a proceeding. A probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal trial within the meaning of section 1054.3 governing the scope of the discovery obligations of the defense, and no statutory or constitutional authority provides for such discovery.id: 17710
The trial court erred by ordering defendant to submit to an evaluation with a prosecution psychiatrist after the defense experts testified.The trial court erred by ordering defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination by a prosecution expert after defense experts testified on his behalf. However, neither the discovery statutes nor the constitution authorize such discovery. However, defendant was not prejudiced by the examination or the prosecution expert’s testimony that defendant refused to participate in the evaluation, in light of the other evidence presented.id: 20501
Section 1054.9 which provides for postconviction discovery following death or LWOP verdicts was not an invalid amendment to the criminal discovery statutes. Penal Code section 1054.9 provides a person subject to a sentence of death or life without parole to postconviction discovery to assist in seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Section 1054.9 is not an invalid amendment to the criminal discovery statutes. In interpreting section 1054.9 the court also found a defendant need not provide the prosecutor with an inventory of every document he or she currently possesses. The provision does not give the defendant a right to have the court order duplicative discovery. It also does not provide a vehicle for a defendant to enforce any obligation the prosecution might have to produce exculpatory evidence it did not possess at the time of trial. id: 20535
An unsworn denial of the existence of further responsive documents is not a valid basis for upholding the denial of a section 1054.9 discovery motion.Penal Code section 1054.9 provides for postconviction discovery after a death or life without parole verdict. A prosecutor’s unsworn denial of the existence of any further responsive documents is not a valid basis for upholding the denial of a defendant’s section 1054.9 motion for discovery.id: 20534
The trial court erred by forcing defendant to testify as a sanction for defense counsel's alleged discovery violation, and by instructing with CALJIC 2.28.The trial court prohibited a key defense witness from testifying as a sanction for not including her name on the defense witness list. This was a misapprehension of the facts, as the prosecutor had been told about the witness. The mistake led the court to force defendant to testify or rest without presenting any evidence. The court erred in forcing defendant to choose between his right to present a defense and his right to remain silent. The error was not cured by later allowing the other witness to testify since, by that time, the jury was informed of defendant's prior convictions. The court further erred by instructing the jury with CALJIC 2.28 which attributed defense counsel's malfeasance to defendant. The instruction has been largely criticized and will be modified in 2006.
id: 18715
The District Attorney had no standing to participate in defendant's third party discovery efforts seeking information from the jury commissioner as to how jury pools are assembled.The trial court erred by denying the defense request to preclude the prosecution from participating in the proceedings on his efforts to obtain discovery from the jury commissioner on the jury selection system in San Diego. Moreover, there is no statutory or other authority requiring the defense, the jury commissioner or the trial court to share with the prosecutor the documents and other information the defendant may obtain through his third party discovery efforts in this case.id: 19691
The trial court erred in denying defendant's section 1054.9 discovery request based on the prosecutor's unsworn denial of the existence of any responsive documents. Penal Code section 1054.9 governs postconviction discovery in capital (and LWOP) cases. The trial court erred in finding the prosecutor's unsworn denial of the existence of any further responsive documents was a valid basis for the denial of defendant's request for discovery under section 1054.9.id: 19363
Defendant seeking postconviction discovery under section 1054.9 need not show the requested materials exist or are in the prosecutor's possession.Penal Code section 1054.9 allows persons subject to a death sentence or life in prison without parole to file a motion for postconviction discovery to assist in seeking a writ of habeas corpus or an order vacating judgment. To obtain access to discovery materials pursuant to section 1054.9, a defendant is not required to show that the materials actually exist and are in the possession of the prosecution and/or relevant law enforcement authorities, or that the defendant has a good faith
basis to so believe.id: 19357
A defendant seeking postconviction discovery under section 1054.9 need not show the prosecution possesses the information sought and need not provide an inventory of everything it has, but the defendant has no right to duplicative discovery. Penal Code section 1054.9, governs postconviction discovery in capital cases. A defendant seeking discovery under this provision is not required to prove the actual existence of (or a good faith belief in the existence of) materials in the possession of the prosecution or law enforcement before the court can order discovery. Moreover, in requesting discovery, a defendant does not have to provide the prosecution with an inventory of every item the defense already possesses. However, section 1054.9 does not give a defendant the right to have the court order duplicative discovery.id: 19361
Section 1054.9, which provides for postconviction discovery in a capital case, does not require the defendant to demonstrate that discoverable material has been withheld. The trial court erred by requiring defendant, as a prerequisite to obtaining Penal Code section 1054.9 post conviction discovery following a death judgment, to make a showing that the
prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense at the time of trial. Section 1054.9, as interpreted in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 contains no such requirement.
Contrary to the prosecutor's claim, Evidence Code section 664 does not require a presumption that the prosecution disclosed all necessary materials.id: 19104
Statements made to psychotherapist in preparation of a report for the defense are not discoverable under the reciprocal discovery statutes.A defendant in a criminal case cannot be compelled under the reciprocal discovery statutes to supply the prosecution with his statements about the offense made to and relied upon by a psychotherapist for the purpose of preparing a report for the defense. Such statements are covered by the attorney-client privilege and are exempt from discovery under the provisions of Penal Code section 1054.6.id: 11884
The prosecution's failure to provide discovery of its rebuttal evidence required reversal of the death sentence.In defendant's capital case, the trial court prejudicially erred in not requiring the prosecutor to provide discovery of what evidence it intended to present in rebuttal to the proffered testimony of two priests who would testify that people can change. Denial of the potential rebuttal evidence thwarts defense counsel's ability to present an intelligent defense and to make an informed tactical decision whether to present
mitigating evidence.id: 19108
Due process clause requires that under the Proposition 115 discovery provisions the defendant will have an opportunity to discover the prosecutor's rebuttal witnesses.Defendant argued the Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provisions violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Contrary to defendant's claim, the fact that the defense must request discovery from the prosecution once a discovery of the defense is compelled does not violate due process. Moreover, reciprocity under the due process clause requires notice that the defendant will have the opportunity to discover the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses (and their statements) following discovery of defense witnesses by the prosecution.id: 11858
Under the reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115, attorney work product is nondiscoverable.Defendant argued the Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provisions requiring pretrial disclosure of statements of defense witnesses implicates the Sixth Amendment by violating the work product doctrine. However, the new discovery chapter specifically provides that attorney work product is nondiscoverable.id: 11896
The statutory discovery provisions of Proposition 115 requires the prosecution to further disclose information it may present in rebuttal after it has discovered defense material.Appellant argued the statutory discovery provisions of Proposition 115 (Penal Code section 1054 et seq.) violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution because they fail to explicitly require the prosecution to disclose to the defense any evidence it obtained as the result of receiving discovery material from the defense. However, the prosecution has a duty to disclose to the defense new evidence it obtains or possess as a result of defense-supplied discovery. Nothing in the language of Proposition 115 changes this requirement of reciprocity.id: 11889
Under the reciprocal discovery provision of Proposition 115, a witness interview report that reflects an attorney's mental processes is protected work product.Appellant argued that the Penal Code section 1054.3 requirement of disclosing witness statements and reports violates the work product doctrine. However, to the extent that witnesses' statements and reports of witnesses' interviews reflect merely what the witnesses said they are not work product. To the extent that a report of a witness interview reflects an attorney's mental processes, it is exempted by section 1054.6 and a party can seek a protective order to that effect or an in camera review in which the privileged material can be excused.id: 11897
Court erred in ordering disclosure of psychologist's interview notes where defense counsel indicated no decision had been made as to whether to call the expert to testify.Before the start of the second penalty trial, the prosecutor moved for discovery of all materials reviewed by any expert whom defendant intended to call as a witness. Defense counsel objected that such compelled disclosure regarding the notes of a psychologist defendant considered calling as a witness violated defendant's right against self-incrimination. The court erred in ordering production of the materials. While defendant may not object to vigorous cross-examination when he puts a witness on the stand, he does not waive his right to refuse to supply the prosection with the means to conduct that cross-examination. The defense ultimately decided not to call the psychologist and the prosecution therefore received an unwarranted windfall. However, the error was not prejudicial as the prosecutor made only a few passing references to the psychologist's notes and none of the information was particularly harmful.id: 12025
Reciprocal discovery provision of Prop 115 did not require that defendant provide the People with the portion of a witness' report that was protected under the attorney-client privilege.The trial court ordered defendant to provide the People with pretrial discovery of all guilt phase material pursuant to Penal Code sections 1054 through 1054.7. Defendant notified the People of his intention to call his psychologist as a witness and provided a copy of the witness' report with substantial deletions. The deleted portion was the statement defendant made to the psychologist regarding the charged offenses. The statement comes within the express definition of a privileged communication under the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, it was not subject to disclosure at the time the witness was designated pursuant to section 1054.3. Moreover, the witness' partial disclosure of the report did not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege with respect to the deleted portion.id: 11881
Court may not order production of expert witness' statements and reports when the witness has not been designated by the defense.Penal Code section 1054.3 requires defense counsel to disclose to the prosecutor the names of expert witnesses who are called to testify at trial, and further requires the production of reports or statements prepared by the experts in connection with the case. In the instant case, the trial court was convinced defense counsel planned to call an expert witness notwithstanding defense counsel's protestation that a decision had not been made to call the witness. In such case, the discovery provisions do not empower the court to issue a discovery order requiring the production of reports and other materials prepared by the witness. The court went on to say that an order requiring the experts to produce his or her notes in most circumstances would go beyond the specification of discoverable items set forth in the statute.id: 11847
Court's preclusion sanction for failing to comply with the discovery order was improper where the court failed to exhaust other sanctions or consider less restrictive alternatives.Defendant was charged with the burglary of his former lover's residence. He argued the items taken were the property of the business that had been operated by the two of them. The court ordered defendant to produce the partnership agreement and ordered exclusion from trial of the agreement as a sanction for failing to comply with the discovery order. Preclusion sanctions are drastic and must be used sparingly. The instant sanction was supported by a showing of a deliberate discovery abuse calculated to obtain a tactical advantage at trial. Moreover, the court erred in failing to attempt to exhaust all other sanctions and consider less restrictive alternatives. However, the court's error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the fact that property other than partnership property had been taken.id: 11849
Prosecutor prejudicially erred in withholding a tape recorded conversation between defendant and police from the defense and the court erred in not ordering the tape produced.Defendant was charged with molesting three minors at a party. His defense was that he was too intoxicated to form the specific intent needed for conviction. During trial it was discovered the prosecution failed to produce a tape recording of defendant's conversation with police following arrest. The prosecutor stated defendant never requested the tape recording and that it was cumulative of the arresting officer's testimony. However, since the tape had a significant potential for helping the defense it was material evidence and the prosecutor erred in withholding it from the defense. Moreover, when apprised of the situation the trial court erred in excluding the tape as evidence. The due process violation was prejudicial where deliberations were lengthy and defendant was convicted of only one of three charges.id: 11878
Prohibiting the testimony of a defense witness is not an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation absent a showing of significant prejudice and willful conduct.After the prosecution presented its case-in-chief and had rested, defense counsel informed the court defendant wished to call his cellmate as a witness to impeach one or two of the four eyewitnesses. The trial court found there was a failure to comply with discovery requirements and that the sanction of prohibiting the defense witness' testimony was appropriate. However, there was no showing of significant prejudice and no record supporting a finding of a willful failure to disclose. Exclusion of the testimony of the defense witness was therefore a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment (right to present evidence). Moreover, the error was prejudicial under the <i>Chapman</i> standard. In a case dependent upon eyewitness identification to establish guilt, the impeachment of one or two of the four eyewitnesses cannot be viewed as insignificant.id: 11867
An informal request for standard reciprocal discovery is sufficient to create a prosecution duty to disclose felony convictions of all of its material witnesses if the record of conviction is reasonably accessible.The prosecution argued the trial court erred in granting a new trial because a prosecutor is not required, absent a request, to obtain criminal history information ("rap sheets") on all critical witnesses. However, an informal request for standard reciprocal discovery is sufficient to create a prosecution duty to disclose the felony convictions of all material prosecution witnesses if the record is reasonably accessible to the prosecutor.id: 15793
The trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting the defense from directly contacting the victims absent evidence of threats or harassment.There was no evidence presented of harassment, threats, or danger to the safety of the victims sufficient to support the trial court's exercise of its discretion in ruling that good cause barred the defense from directly contacting the victims. Given the absence of demonstrable good cause to impose a restriction on defense counsel's access to the prosecution's prospective witnesses within the purview of the statutory exceptions to discovery set forth in Penal Code section 1054 et seq., the trial court's order restricting the defense from directly contacting the victims was vacated.id: 11890
Work product privilege was violated by references to experts hired by the defense but not called to testify.The trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant's psychiatrists, and to argue in summation, with regard to certain psychiatrists, of whom the jurors were unaware, who had earlier examined defendant but were not called by him on the stand. This evidence violated the work product rule set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2018. The error was harmless where the prosecutors questions to the testifying defense experts elicited only answers that knowledge of the nontestifying experts' opinions would not have had any bearing on their diagnoses. Moreover, defendant's mental state was thoroughly explored by the five testifying experts who disagreed only as to the severity of the mental illness.id: 15806
Attorney-client privilege protected witness' communications with privately retained mental health experts even though the same experts' records from the competency exam (for which they were appointed) were provided to defendant.The primary witness against defendant was Garrison, defendant's confederate and perhaps the shooter. Defendant was given access to Garrison's psychiatric records including hospital records, jail records, and records generated in connection with his competency exam. However, Garrison's attorney then retained the two court appointed experts for additional examinations, and defendant was denied access to those records. Those records were protected by the attorney-client privilege even though not protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. Moreover, defendant's rights to confrontation and due process did not entitle him to access to confidential communications between Garrison, his attorney and his experts.id: 16934
An indicted defendant may obtain discovery of nontestimonial grand jury proceedings to prepare a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause.A trial court does not abuse its discretion in compelling disclosure of nontestimonial portions of grand jury proceedings to assist defendant in preparing a statutory motion to dismiss the indictment, including advice, instruction, argument and other communications between the district attorney and the grand jury such as questions and answers, readbacks of testimony, as well as questions and answers between the court and jury. Disclosure is not permitted of information which has no bearing on defendant's statutory and due process rights to bring a motion to dismiss the indictment, including information regarding the identities of the grand jurors and other persons present, or the dates or lengths of the sessions.id: 15691
Updated 3/7/2024The trial court did not err by quashing the subpoenas seeking internal documents from the insurance companies in a workers’ comp fraud case.Defendant (a chiropractor) was charged with conspiracy to commit workers’ compensation fraud. He argued the trial court erred in quashing his subpoenas seeking internal documents from the insurance carriers. However, the trial court reasonably concluded that the defense request for the internal documents was of minimal relevance and value for the defense and was overburdensome on the insurance companies. id: 26338
Updated 3/6/2024The trial court did not err in denying a preservation of evidence order directed at expert witnesses who were not part of the prosecution’s team in the capital murder case.Defendant was sentenced to death and his appeal is pending. In anticipation of his future habeas corpus proceeding, he sought a superior court order to preserve evidence that might be relevant to his petition. The trial court erred in denying the petition (for lack of jurisdiction) as it related to Cellmark and SERI (Serological Research Institute, Inc.) because those entities participated in the murder investigation at the direction of law enforcement and were part of the prosecution’s team for purposes of discovery. However, the independent expert witnesses retained by the prosecution solely for their testimony at trial who did not participate in the investigation were not part of the prosecution team, and the court did not err in denying a preservation order aimed at them.id: 26511
The prosecution was not required to provide discovery regarding the STRmix DNA program that was in the possession of a third party who was not a member of the prosecution team.The San Diego Police Department Crime Lab tested swabs from bloody gloves using the STRmix program that it purchased from a distributor of a research institute owned by the government of New Zealand and a private company - ESR. The trial court granted the defense request to provide discovery regarding the STRmix program. However, ESR, which possesses the requested source codes and other information, is not a member of the prosecution’s team, and the prosecution was not required to produce the material in its possession.id: 25926
The prosecution was not required to provide the defense with evidence of the codefendant’s free talk until he became a prosecution witness. A codefendant pled guilty during jury selection and testified against defendant. Defendant argued the prosecution committed misconduct by not providing timely discovery of the free talk that preceded the plea. However, the free talk contained no evidence of defendant’s innocence. While it may have contained information that undermined the codefendant’s credibility, that only became relevant when he became a prosecution witness, and that’s when the prosecution provided it.id: 25773
The Legislature has created no exception for the release of information from a sealed juvenile delinquency file to a third party criminal defendant. The juvenile court dismissed a delinquency petition and sealed the minor’s records. A criminal defendant later filed a request for disclosure of the minor’s sealed records. However, the Legislature has created no exception for the release of information from a sealed delinquency file to a third party criminal defendant. The trial court can make whatever rulings are necessary to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial.id: 25320
The trial court did not err in denying the mistrial motion based on late discovery where defendant could not show prejudice.Defendant moved for a mistrial based on the late discovery of vaginal swab slide evidence, the prosecution criminologist’s notes, and delayed notice of Dr. Wagner’s testimony that the intercourse took place less than 24 hours from the time the vaginal swab was taken during the autopsy. A mistrial should be granted where an error during trial results in prejudice that is incurable by instruction or admonition. The experts new notes did not prejudice the defense because the jury never saw them. The slide evidence was not a product of prosecutorial misconduct but rather the doctor’s view of the slide under different lighting conditions the day before trial. And the defense learned of Dr. Wagner’s position three weeks before trial but never requested a continuance.id: 25006
There is no right of reciprocal discovery between codefendants.The trial court did not err by refusing to order the codefendant to provide discovery to the defendant because Penal Code section 1054 does not require such a practice and the court’s order did not violate any constitutional provisions.id: 25014
Prosecutorial discovery violation was harmless where defendant failed to request a continuance and failed to show how the new witness’s testimony affected the defense strategy. Defendant argued the prosecution violated the discovery rules by failing to disclose that it intended to call an expert witness. However, defendant did not ask for a continuance when the prosecutor indicated she would be calling the witness, and defendant failed to show how the witness’s testimony made any difference to her strategy. Any discovery violation was harmless.id: 25016
The trial court did not err by failing to compel discovery of a witness’s address where the court ordered instead that the witness be made available for an interview at defense counsel’s office.The trial court did not err by failing to order the prosecution to provide discovery of a witness’s address (or the address of her parents) since the court provided a compromise where the witness and her parents would be made available for an office interview, and defense counsel agreed to the arrangement.id: 25017
Section 1054.9 does not require an inmate seeking postconviction discovery to pay in advance for copies of discovery.Penal Code section 1054.9 does not require an inmate seeking postconviction discovery after a death or life without parole verdict to pay in advance for copies of discovery. The trial court’s order to the contrary was vacated and the matter remanded to allow the parties to settle the matter informally.id: 24832
The prosecution had no duty to provide a usable copy of a videotape to the defense where conversion to VHS was not possible and the prosecutor offered to make the video available for viewing offsite.By alerting the defense to the existence of the Jack in the Box videotape and making it available for viewing offsite, the prosecution complied with its obligation under Penal Code section 1054.1, subd.(e) to disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession. The prosecution had tried to convert the video to a “normal VHS tape” but couldn’t do it. It had no duty to provide a “usable copy” as defendant argued.id: 24816
Late discovery was not prejudicial where the court offered the defense extra time to prepare. Defendant argued the trial court erred by finding no discovery violations related to the late disclosure of data extracted from his cell phone. The records were not provided 30 days before trial as required by Penal Code section 1054.7. However, there was no prejudice as the court prohibited the prosecution from introducing the evidence until the following week, so the defendant had time to investigate everything, and it offered the defense extra time to prepare.id: 25495
Failure to provide defendant with discovery regarding the codefendant’s free talk was harmless.Defendant argued that once the codefendant chose to testify, he should have been provided discovery regarding the codefendant’s “free talk” with the prosecution. However, any error was harmless since disclosing the free talk before the testimony wouldn’t have significantly affected the trial.id: 25461
A criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to obtain social media records from Facebook.A criminal defendant has no constitutional right to obtain his alleged victim’s social media communications. The trial court erred by ordering production of Facebook contents that are protected from disclosure by the Stored Communications Act.id: 25365
Defendants were not entitled to an interview report prepared by the attorney of a codefendant who entered a plea before trial.Defendants were convicted of first degree murder for the slaying of their accomplice in a botched jewelry store robbery. Defendants never entered the store but were convicted under the provocative acts doctrine. The attorney for the surviving codefendant who entered a plea had conducted an interview with a jewelry store employee. The trial court did not err by upholding the codefendant’s attorney’s claim of work product privilege in refusing to turn over the report. Defendants argued the report was relevant to their defense the unarmed robber charged the store employee only after the armed robber had been shot and neutralized, thus negating the provocative acts doctrine. However, the Penal Code does not provide for discovery among codefendants absent certain exceptions that did not apply here.id: 25354
The trial court did not err by denying discovery of records relating to other collisions in the area.Defendant was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. He argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to compel discovery of CHP records relating to other auto collisions in the area within seven years of the charged incident. However, the request did not involve “exculpatory evidence” withing the meaning of Penal Code section 1054.1, subd.(e). Even if there were other collisions in the area, that wouldn’t reduce defendant’s negligence given his speed while entering the curve.id: 25229
The trial court did not err by admonishing the jury about defense counsel’s failure to comply with a discovery order after counsel asked the prosecution’s expert about the lack of evidence to support the testimony. Defense counsel asked the prosecution’s expert about the lack of evidence to support his testimony. The trial court did not err by then informing the jury the reason the expert lacked evidence was because defense counsel had failed to comply with a discovery order.id: 24525
Defendants were not entitled to the murder victim’s social media content as part of pretrial discovery.Defendants facing murder and gang charges served a subpoena duces tecum on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter seeking public and private content from the user accounts of the victim and a witness. The social media sites objected under the federal Stored Communications Act - 18 USC 2701 et seq. Defendant argued the information was necessary to properly prepare the defense. The subpoenas were quashed after the court found the defendants had no right to the information as part of pretrial discovery, although they might be given access later. Denying access did not violate the confrontation, compulsory process, or due process clauses. While the prosecution might access the data through the warrant procedure, defendants were not entitled to simply request it through pretrial discovery.id: 24281
The trial court did not err by excluding the testimony of a jail doctor where the defense was late in adding her name to the witness list and failed to establish the relevance of her testimony. Defendant argued the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of the treating physician at the jail to rebut the officer’s testimony that she was lucid at the time of the interrogation. But the defense was late in adding the doctor to the witness list and failed to establish how she could provide relevant testimony on defendant’s mental condition when interrogated.id: 24087
Supreme Court rules defendant can waive right to impeachment material, reversing Ninth Circuit.In U.S. v. Ruiz, 241, F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001), The Ninth Circuit held that a defendant's guilty plea cannot be deemed knowing and voluntary if the prosecutor withholds information that could be used to impeach the government's witnesses at trial. Thus, the court held, a defendant's right to receive impeachment information pursuant to Giglio v. U.S. 405 U.S. 150 (1972), "can never be waived." The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that prosecutors have no obligation to turn over material impeachment information before a defendant pleads guilty.id: 20145
Supreme Court holds that defendant must show bad faith when police destroy evidence after defense discovery motion.In 1998, defendant was charged with possession of cocaine. Prior to trial, he filed a motion for discovery of physical evidence that the state would use at trial. Before the state could produce the evidence, defendant because a fugitive; he was not recaptured until 1999. In the meantime, the state, following standard procedure, destroyed the drugs seized from defendant. At trial, the state introduced evidence that defendant possessed cocaine. A state appellate court held that defendant's 1988 pretrial discovery motion put the state on notice that the evidence should be preserved and that the destruction of the cocaine required dismissal of the indictment, even without a showing that the state acted in bad faith. The Supreme Court summarily reversed, holding that under Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51, a defendant must show that the state acted in bad faith when it destroyed "potentially useful evidence" and that defendant's discovery request did not eliminate the need to show bad faith.id: 20163
The trial court did not err by refusing to order the prosecution to run the rap sheet of a police officer witness.The prosecutor has a duty under Brady v. Maryland to learn of and disclose material impeachment information about police officer witnesses within the prosecution’s constructive possession, but the prosecution cannot be forced to comply with its Brady duty to investigate in a particular manner. The trial court did not err by refusing to order the prosecution to run an officer’s rap sheet pursuant to Brady. And the court didn’t err by denying the Pitchess motion seeking the officer’s rap sheet and birth date where the rap sheet was not in the officer’s personnel file. Neither was the prosecution required to run the rap sheet under the general discovery provisions.id: 23853
The prosecutor had no obligation to provide as discovery the current address of its key witness who had previously received death threats. The prosecutor did not violate Brady v. Maryland or the statutory discovery obligations by failing to provide the defense with a current address for its key witness. However, the death threats made earlier to the witness constituted good cause to deny disclosure of the witness’s address. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the court was not required to provide the information only to counsel with orders to keep it from the defendant. Moreover, the nondisclosure of the current address did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation. id: 23431
The trial court did not err by denying discovery concerning murders of other prostitutes or a killer profile as the requests lacked specificity. Defendant argued the denial of discovery concerning the murders of other prostitutes not charged here, and the profile of a killer prepared by police violated due process. However defendant provided no specificity when seeking discovery and sought to undertake a “fishing expedition.” His theory that a profile of the characteristics of the person who might have committed 19 killings would have led the defense to the killer was surely speculative. id: 23571
Ex parte hearings at defendant’s capital trial regarding the nondisclosure of witness identities did not require automatic reversal.Defendant argued the trial court erred at his capital trial by conducting a series of ex parte hearings pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.7 regarding the nondisclosure of witness identities. Even if the court erred by proceeding ex parte, reversal is not automatic and was harmless here where the testimony heard at the hearings supported the redaction orders and did not hamper defendant’s ability to conduct a defense.id: 22852
Allowing the prosecutor to be present for interviews with protected witnesses did not violate work product or reciprocal discovery rules.Defendant argued the trial court erred by requiring his counsel to interview certain protected witnesses in the presence of the prosecutor. However, the court did not mandate the prosecutor’s presence, it said he could attend if requested by the witness. The procedure did not violate the work product privilege and did not impermissibly provide the prosecution with nonreciprocal discovery benefits, especially where the witness had a right independent of the order to refuse to speak with defense counsel.id: 22851
Recording of witness interviews are entitled to at least qualified work product protection. Recordings of witness interview conducted by investigators employed by defendant’s counsel in a civil case, were entitled as a matter of law to at least qualified work product protection. The statements may be entitled to absolute protection if defendant can show the disclosure would reveal the attorney’s impressions, conclusions or legal theories.id: 22755
The trial court erred by granting a new trial as a discovery sanction under section 1054.5, subd.(b) after the jury returned its verdict. A trial court’s power to grant sanctions under Penal Code section 1054.5, subd.(b) based on the prosecutor’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is limited to a circumstance where the verdict has not yet been rendered on the crimes and the trial court has jurisdiction over the case. The trial court erred by granting a new trial as a discovery sanction under section 1054.5, subd.(b) after the jury rendered its verdict and the court conducted the trial on the alleged prior offenses.id: 22342
Criminal discovery statutes do not preclude the prosecution from obtaining various testimonial corporate documents. During pretrial proceedings in a misdemeanor case, the trial court held that the criminal discovery statutes precluded the prosecutor from obtaining production of various corporate documents pertaining to corporate structure and operations from the corporate defendants. However, the discovery statutes do not bar production of the records, which constitute a category of testimonial evidence that Penal Code section 1054.4 and established precedent permit the prosecutor to obtain.id: 22316
The trial court did not err by refusing to exclude the digitally enhanced photos as a sanction for the asserted discovery violation.Defendant argued the trial court should have excluded the digitally enhanced photographs and the testimony of the DA tech who produced them as a sanction for the prosecutor’s discovery violation in failing to disclose the information about the process used to create the still images. However, the trial court has discretion to choose from a range of possible sanctions following a discovery violation. Here the court reasonably refused to order sanctions and the offer to allow the defense time to attempt to find an expert was sufficient to remedy any discovery violation.id: 21987
The prosecution may compel a mental examination by its own expert in a case where defendant pleads NGI.A 2010 amendment to the California discovery law (Penal Code section 1054.3, subd.(b)(1)) allows the prosecution to compel a mental examination by a retained prosecution expert of a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. Because the subject matter of section 1054.3, subd.(b) concerns procedures to be followed in preparation for trial and at trial, its application is prospectiveid: 21998
Prosecutor may participate at in camera hearing addressing third party discovery and may discover the identity of the subpoenaed party and nature of the documents sought under the third party subpoena.Under Penal Code section 1326, subd.(c), a person or entity responding to a subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case must deliver the subject materials to the clerk so the court can conduct a hearing to determine whether the requesting party may receive them. When the defendant is the requesting party, the court may conduct the hearing in camera. The prosecutor may participate in and argue at the hearing if the court desires. The Court of Appeal erred in categorically denying the prosecutor’s right to discover the identity of the subpoenaed party and the nature of the documents sought under the third party subpoena. The defendants rights can be protected by redaction, conducting portions of the hearing in camera, and withholding disclosure of certain records until the defense determines it will use them at trial. The interpretation of the discovery statutes is also consistent with “Marsy’s Law.” id: 21831
Section 1054.9 is not limited to discovery requests by convicted capital defendants who are represented by counsel.Pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9, a criminal defendant sentenced to death or life without the possibility of parole may obtain discovery materials from the superior court even where he is not represented by counsel at the time. The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion because he was not represented by counsel. id: 21407
The prosecution is not required to provide copies of discovery mandated by section 1054.1 free of charge to non-indigent defendants. Penal Code section 1054.1 requires that the prosecution disclose certain things to the defense. Defendant, who had retained counsel, demanded that the prosecution furnish him copies of the discoverable items free of charge. However, section 1054.1 only requires that the prosecution afford the defense an opportunity to examine or copy the material. A non-indigent defendant may receive copies at his own expense. id: 21637
Section 1054.9 which provides for postconviction discovery in certain cases does not govern materials in the possession of out-of-state law enforcement. Penal Code section 1054.9 which provides for postconviction discovery in capital cases does not govern materials in the possession of out-of-state law enforcement agencies that merely provided the prosecution with information or assistance under the circumstances of the case.id: 21783
Provision regarding postconviction discovery in capital cases requires defense to show the requested materials exist, but need not show it is Brady material.Because Penal Code section 1054.9 provides only for specific discovery and not the proverbial “fishing expedition” for anything that might exist, defendants seeking discovery beyond recovering what the prosecution had provided to the defense before trial must show a reasonable basis to believe that specific requested materials actually exist. But they do not have to additional show that they are material within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland.id: 21782
Life prisoner was not entitled to discovery under section 1054.9 to materials relevant to his intent to kill where the issue had been litigated in previous writ proceedings.Defendant, who was serving a life without possibility of parole term, sought discovery materials under Penal Code section 1054.9 attempting to file a third successive habeas petition on an issue previously decided - the lack of an intent to kill the victim. He sought certain items including the court statements of all witnesses hoping to find discrepancies that would prove he had no intent to kill. However, such evidence was not new evidence and not the type of evidence that a reasonable jury could not have rejected. As such, defendant had no legitimate grounds for a third habeas petition.id: 21797
The trial court erred by precluding the prosecution’s witnesses rather than considering less drastic sanctions for the prosecutor's discovery violations. The trial court erred by excluding multiple prosecution witnesses, dog scent evidence, and gunshot residue evidence as a sanction for the prosecution’s failure to provide discovery. The court exceeded its jurisdiction under Penal Code section 1054.5, subd.(c) because it was required to exhaust less drastic sanctions before excluding the evidence. Writ relief was appropriate to correct the prohibited act. id: 21551
Capital defendant was not entitled to review the entire juvenile dependency casefile of the attempted murder victim.Defendant was convicted of capital murder of Lisa and the attempted murder of Tara. He argued the trial court erred in denying him unrestricted access in a capital case to the juvenile dependency case file of Tara. However, the court reviewed the entire file and determined there was no evidence material to the appeal. Defendant was not entitled to review the undisclosed portion of the file. id: 21178
The trial court did not err in finding defendant’s section 1054.9 postconviction discovery motion filed seven years after his capital habeas petition was not timely.A convicted defendant awaiting execution filed a writ petition seeking postconviction discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.9. The statute requires the motion be filed within a “reasonable” time period. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant’s motion was not timely where it was filed 17 years after his conviction and seven years after his petition for writ of habeas corpus.id: 20577
Autopsy reports are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.Coroner and autopsy reports that constitute investigations of a suspected homicide death in which the prospect of criminal law enforcement proceedings is concrete and definite are public records that are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act - Government Code section 6254, subd.(f). That subdivision exempts from public disclosure investigatory files compiled by any agency for law enforcement purposes.id: 20795
The trial court erred by dismissing the special circumstance allegation as a sanction for the discovery violation.The trial court dismissed the special circumstance allegation in a capital case as a sanction against the prosecutor for late disclosure of relevant reports after denying the existence of the reports. A trial court’s power to impose partial dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is subject to the same limitation as its power to dismiss an entire charge as a sanction. It cannot do so unless dismissal is required by the federal constitution, and in this case it was not.id: 20387
Defendant was not entitled to discovery of the psychiatric records of his codefendant.The trial court erred in denying the motion to quash the defendant's subpoena seeking discovery of a codefendant. The codefendant was not part of the prosecution and he could not be required to decide whether to testify in order to litigate the issue of the motion to quash. The discovery statutes do not require that one defendant be obligated to provide materially exculpatory evidence to a codefendant, much less that one defendant provide privileged records to a codefendant.id: 11852
Supreme Court says defendant has no constitutional right to notice of evidence the state plans to use.Petitioner argued that he had inadequate notice of the evidence the state used at the penalty phase of his capital trial. In a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that there is no general constitutional right to notice of evidence the prosecution plans to use. No such right was created by <i>Brady v. Maryland</i>, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) because it applies only to exculpatory evidence, and <i>Gardner v. Florida</i>, 430 U.S. 349 (1977), held only that a defendant has a right not to be sentenced on the basis of information he has no opportunity to deny or explain. Here, the petitioner had notice of the evidence the day before it was introduced, and he did not seek a continuance to rebut it. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented.id: 9524
The trial court erred in dismissing charges as a result of a discovery violation that did not implicate the U.S. Constitution. The trial court dismissed numerous charges against the defendants based on its finding that the prosecutor had violated discovery statutes by failing to provide defendants with reports of various witness statements regarding defendants' supposed affiliation with the Taliban. Dismissal is a proper sanction only when there is a federal constitutional violation, and absent Brady v. Maryland error there is no federal
constitutional violation. There was no Brady violation here where the evidence not disclosed was not favorable to the defendants.id: 19655
Allowing a witness to testify about a statement defendant made in a holding cell did not violate the work product privilege. Defendant argued the trial court erred in allowing a person in a nearby holding cell (Joseph) to testify that defendant told him he had a witness who would say Joseph admitted to killing the victims. The testimony did not violate the work product privilege and the court did not err in failing to give a limiting instruction as to the purpose of the statement.id: 19442
A defendant seeking postconviction discovery under section 1054.9 must show that he/she would have been entitled to those materials at the time of trial.Penal Code section 1054.9 allows persons subject to a sentence of death or life without parole to assist in seeking a writ of habeas corpus or an order vacating judgment. In seeking discovery under section 1054.9, a defendant must show the trial court that he would have been entitled to the materials he is requesting at the time of trial. When the trial court denies the request, he must make the same showing in the Court of Appeal to show the trial court abused its discretion in
denying the discovery request.id: 19358
Section 1054.9 does not provide a vehicle to enforce an obligation the prosecutor may have to produce exculpatory evidence it did not possess at the time of trial. Penal Code section 1054.9, which governs postconviction discovery in capital (and LWOP) cases does not provide a vehicle for a defendant to enforce any obligation the prosecution may have to produce exculpatory evidence it did not possess at trial.id: 19362
There was no discovery violation as the defense never showed the prosecutor learned the expert's opinion based on laptop evidence before receiving the written report. Defendant argued the trial court erred in not excluding the prosecution's expert opinion, drawn from an examination of the laptop, because the prosecutor did not turn over the report
until a few days before trial. However, the prosecutor turned over the expert's report immediately and nothing in the record suggests the prosecution learned of the expert's opinion
based on the laptop evidence prior to receiving the written report. Thus, defendant failed to establish a violation of Penal Code section 1054.7 as to any statement by the expert prior to delivery of his report.id: 19314
Prop 115 discovery provisions do not prohibit compelled prosecution mental examinations.A criminal defendant may be required to submit to an
examination by a prosecution expert upon request when he places his mental condition at issue. This compelled examination is not a form of discovery prohibited by the criminal discovery
statutes.id: 18969
Defense counsel violated the discovery statute by failing to provide the expert's notes even though the expert did not prepare a report.The trial court did not err in finding defense counsel violated the discovery rules by failing to disclose information from his accident reconstruction expert. While the expert did not prepare a report, he did have notes from several conversations with defense counsel where he had explained various theories to counsel. The failure to disclose the "statements made by the expert" was a violation of Penal Code section 1054.3.id: 18903
Prop 115 did not require that police officers retain and turn over raw notes taken from witness interviews.A police officer testified that she destroyed witness interview notes after using the notes to prepare her report. Contrary to defendant's claim, the failure to preserve and turn over these raw notes did not violate the reciprocal discovery provisions of Prop 115.id: 18851
Section 1054.3 requires the defense to provide the prosecutor with oral statements of the witnesses the defense intends to call at trial.Defendant argued Penal Code section 1054.3 compels the defense to disclose to the prosecution only relevant videotaped, tape-recorded, or written statements of witnesses the defense intends to call at trial; it does not require the defense to provide the prosecution with reports of relevant unrecorded oral statements made by defense witnesses. However, based upon the plain meaning of the text of section 1054.3, considered together with the purpose of the statute, defense counsel must disclose all relevant statements by persons, other than the defendant, whom the defense intends to call as witnesses at trial, including unrecorded oral statements relayed to defense counsel in an oral report by a third party, such as an investigator, and oral statements made by the person directly to defense counsel.id: 18198
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery of files of uncharged similar incidents where the sex victim's privacy rights outweighed the speculative benefit to defendant. (558) Following a remand for an in camera review of police files of uncharged similar incidents, defendant argued the trial court erred in denying him discovery as to those incidents. In two incidents, the perpetrator was never identified so defendant could not have been excluded as a possible perpetrator. Therefore, the files could not lead to exculpatory evidence to which defendant was entitled. The third incident shared similarities with the present offense including the identification. However, defendant's speculative benefit from the information was outweighed by the victim's right to privacy where the crime involved sexual assault. Moreover, neither the official information privilege nor the victim's privacy interest were waived by publication of the address and date of the crime.id: 17440
Court of Appeal erred in ordering disclosure of police records relating to a routine traffic stop.Police received a tip that three Asian males were armed and driving in a blue van. Police then stopped a blue van in the neighborhood which was driven by a Black male with three Hispanic women passengers. No arrest was made but the driver later sought written records of the incident and tape recordings of the anonymous tip. However, the investigation that included the decision to stop and the stop itself was for the purpose of discovering whether a violation of law had occurred and, if so, the circumstances of its commission. Records relating to that investigation are exempt from disclosure by Government Code section 6254, subd.(f). The Court of Appeal erred in ordering them disclosed.id: 16491
Juvenile court erred by granting the motion to quash without conducting an in camera review of the items subpoenaed from the police investigation.Petitioner, a party to a juvenile dependency action, served subpoenas duces tecum on the police and sheriff's departments. He sought to discover forensic evidence and investigative reports relating to an ongoing criminal investigation into the death of a young child. The trial court granted the motion to quash the subpoenas finding the official privilege applied and precluded disclosure of materials relating to an ongoing criminal investigation. However, the court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an in camera review of the requested items before ruling on the motion. The matter was remanded to the trial court for an in camera review.id: 16513
Official information privilege is not waived where the information is shared among various governmental agencies.Petitioner subpoenaed items from police and sheriff's investigative reports relating to the death of a 21 month-old girl. Police argued the information was protected under the official information privilege set forth in Evidence Code section 1040, subd. (b)(2). Defense counsel argued the privilege was waived because the law enforcement agencies provided the information to the Social Services Agency. However, the privilege was not waived by allowing social workers to review the police reports for purposes of preparing their own reports. Moreover, the policy behind the official information privilege is one of governmental privilege, not merely single agency privilege.id: 16514
Court did not err in denying defense access to medical records of victim who attempted suicide during trial.Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder as well as other related crimes. They argued the court erred in refusing to provide them access to the victim's medical records relating to her purported suicide attempt during trial. However, the victim was not the central figure in the crime, and her trial testimony did not vary from her earlier statements and testimony. Moreover, defendants were permitted to cross-examine the victim concerning her attempted suicide. No more was required.id: 15796
Exception to Pitchess motion provisions did not apply where the discovery request did not involve an issue concerning the arrest or time of booking.Officer Alt sought discovery of the personnel records of a fellow officer - Morrison. Morrison accused Alt of engaging in insurance fraud. Citing Evidence Code section 1047, the trial court denied the request for discovery of Morrison's records. However, section 1047 constitutes a specific exemption from the general discovery provisions of sections 1043 and 1045. Section 1047 applies if the request for discovery involves an issue concerning an arrest or a post arrest/pre-booking incident or their functional equivalent. The second prohibits from discovery personnel records for officers who were not present during the arrest or between the arrest and booking. Since Alt's request for discovery did not involve an issue concerning his arrest or any conduct between his arrest and booking, section 1047 did not apply.id: 15798
Reciprocal discovery provisions do not require disclosure of impeachment evidence.The prosecution impeached a defense expert witness with evidence regarding the witness prior drug use. The defense had not been provided with such information prior to trial. The mid-trial revelation of the impeachment evidence did not violate the reciprocal discovery provisions set forth in Penal Code section 1054.1, and did not violate due process.id: 15802
The prosecution had no duty to discover the existence of additional pyramid scheme charges not provided to police by the victims.Defendants were convicted of operating an endless chain scheme in violation of Penal Code section 327. During trial, the prosecution came into possession of other charts providing additional details of the pyramid, Defendants argued the prosecutor abused the discovery process by failing to obtain these charts earlier. However, the prosecution had no duty to discover the existence of, or to seek or obtain, additional charts not provided to the police by the victims. The trial court properly denied the request for dismissal or sanctions.id: 15507
Juvenile court has discretion to order a minor to provide certain discovery to the prosecutor.Petitioner challenged an order entered in his pending juvenile court delinquency proceeding requiring him to provide certain discovery to the prosecutor. The reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115 are inapplicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings. However, the juvenile court had the discretionary authority to make a discovery order consistent with Penal Code sections 1054 et seq.id: 12035
Under Proposition 115, the provision requiring the parties to turn over a witness list does not violate the work product doctrine.Appellant argued that the Penal Code section 1054.3, subdivision (a) requirement that a defendant turn over a witness list violates the work product doctrine. Under California law, witness lists were subject to a qualified work product privilege. It is the intent of Proposition 115 to recognize solely the absolute work product privilege and not to embrace the broader qualified work product privilege.id: 11895
Witness' raw written interview notes, to the extent they are not work product, must be provided to the prosecution.The trial court correctly decided that raw written witness interview notes, to the extent they record the witness' statement rather than an attorney's work product impressions, opinions, or conclusion about the statement, are statements" as defined in Penal Code section 1054.3 and thus subject to discovery.id: 11898
Prop 115 reciprocal discovery provisions require defense disclosure of penalty phase evidence.The reciprocal discovery provision of Penal Code section 1054 et. seq. require defense disclosure of penalty phase evidence. The penalty phase is part of a trial for purposes of the provision. Defendant argued that because Penal Code section 190.3 specifically addresses what shall take place regarding discovery in a penalty phase context, that code section is controlling and applies instead of any of section 1054's provisions. However, section 190.3 has nothing to do with prosecutorial discovery but simply seeks to ensure the defendant will not be surprised at trial by aggravating evidence without notice. Moreover, application of the provision at the penalty phase does not violate due process or the work product doctrine, and does not compromise the right to effective assistance of counsel.id: 11868
Proposition 115 authorizes discovery of information other than the victim's prior felony convictions.Defendant was charged with corporal injury to a spouse, spousal rape, false imprisonment by violence, and dissuading a victim from testifying. He moved to discover the alleged victim's criminal convictions, pending charges, status of being on probation, any acts of victim's dishonesty and any prior false reports of sex offenses by the victim. The People argued Penal Code section 1054.1 does not authorize or permit the requested discovery other than prior felony convictions. However, the type of information defendant requested was both discoverable and admissible because of its potential impact on credibility. The court therefore erred in denying the discovery request. However, reversal was required only for the spousal rape conviction because the victim's testimony was critical to this conviction and there was little corroborating evidence.id: 11869
Proposition 115 discovery provisions do not give the prosecutor free reign over defense files and do not violate the right to the effective assistance of counsel.Defendant argued that prosecutorial discovery of the statements of defense witnesses violates the defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by chilling defense counsel's trial preparation. However, under the new discovery chapter, discovery is limited to relevant statements and reports of statements of defense witnesses and conditioned upon the defendant's intent to call the witnesses at trial. The provisions do not give the prosecution free reign over all defense files.id: 11870
Proposition 115 does not eliminate Pitchess motions.Proposition 115 does not abrogate or repeal the express statutory discovery authorized by Evidence Code sections 1043-1045. Petitioner was therefore entitled to have his <i>Pitchess</i> discovery motion heard on the merits.id: 11871
Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provision does not violate the federal privilege against self-incrimination.Appellant argued the Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provisions embodied in Penal Code section 1054.3 violates the federal privilege against self-incrimination because it compels pre-trial disclosure of defense witnesses and their statements. However, the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by pretrial discovery of witness' statements that give both parties the maximum possible amount of information with which to prepare their cases and thereby reduces the possibility of surprise at trial.id: 11872
Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provision does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination as outlined in the California Constitution.Prosecutorial discovery as provided for in Proposition 115 is not violative of the California Constitution. Article I, section 30, subdivision (c), mandates reciprocal discovery in criminal cases. By its very terms, the new constitutional provision requires both defense and prosecution discovery. This interpretation of the new constitutional provision does not conflict with the privilege against self-incrimination contained in Article I, section 15. The new constitutional provision directly addresses the issues of discovery while Article I, section 15 does not. The amendment initiates the line of cases holding that prosecutorial discovery violates the privilege against self-incriminationid: 11873
Proposition 115 reciprocal discovery provisions provided a specific exception to the broad privilege against self-incrimination found in the state constitution.Defendant argued the reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115 violate the privilege against self-incrimination under the California Constitution (Article I, section 15). However, the newly enacted Article I, section 30(c) constitutes a specific exception to the broad privilege against self-incrimination set forth in Article I, section 15.id: 11874
Proposition 115 requirement that the defense disclose before trial any statements of the witnesses it intends to call at trial does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination.Defendant argued the Penal Code section 1054.3 requirement that the defense disclose before trial any statements of the witnesses it intends to call at trial violates the privilege against self-incrimination of the federal constitution. However, the statements of the witnesses that the defense intends to call at trial are not personal to the defendant, and therefore compelled discovery of such statements does not implicate the self-incrimination clause.id: 11875
Proposition 115 requirement that the defense disclose the names and addresses of all witnesses it intends to call at trial did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination.Defendant argued that the requirement under Penal Code section 1054.3 that the defense must disclose to the prosecution the names and addresses of all witnesses it intends to call at trial, rather than merely its alibi witnesses, violates the privilege against self-incrimination under the federal constitution. However, the provision merely forces the defendant to divulge at an earlier date information that the defendant from the beginning planned to divulge at trial. Such discovery does not constitute compelled self-incrimination and therefore does not implicate the privilege.id: 11876
Proposition 8 Truth-in-Evidence does not require access to records of all classes of care givers in criminal actions.The statutory prohibition against the discovery of records of hospital staff committees applies when the records are sought to impeach an expert called to testify in a criminal trial. Evidence Code section 1157, subdivision (a) provides a broad privilege against the discovery of such records. Although later enacted subdivision (e) opens the door to discovery in a criminal action, subdivision (e) is limited on its face to records of certain classes of care givers added to the statute after the passage of Proposition 8. Any contrary construction would allow the exception under subdivision (e) to erode the expansive protection against disclosure afforded under subdivision (a).id: 11877
Reciprocal discovery provision applies to penalty phase evidence.Reciprocal discovery pursuant to Proposition 115, is available with respect to penalty phase evidence in a capital trial, and such discovery ordinarily should be made at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the guilt phase of the trial. However, trial courts are empowered to exercise discretion in an appropriate case to deter disclosure of all or part of the defendant's penalty phase evidence until the guilt phase has been completed.id: 11880
Reciprocal discovery statutes authorize an order to obtain the address of a potential defense witness if reasonably accessible and a contempt sanction for refusal to obey the order.Penal Code section 1054.3 (setting forth the duty of disclosure on the part of the defense) and section 1054.5 (providing for enforcement of the disclosure requirements) authorize a trial court to impose the sanction of contempt when defense counsel refuses to comply with an order to acquire and disclose to the prosecution the address of a person whom the defense intends to call as a witness at trial. The applicable discovery statutes authorize both an order to obtain that address, if reasonably accessible, and a contempt sanction for refusal to obey that order.id: 11882
The discovery provisions of Proposition 115 apply to misdemeanors as well as felonies.Appellant argued the discovery provisions of Proposition 115 do not apply to misdemeanor cases. According to appellant, the statutory requirement that in-custody misdemeanor defendants be tried within thirty days of arraignment (Penal Code section 1382), subdivision (c)) conflicts with section 1054.7, which requires discovery be made at least thirty days before trial, and section 1054.4, subdivision (b) which requires an informal discovery demand and bars any court enforcement until fifteen days after that demand. However, Proposition 115 has set up a procedure to deal with problems associated with such time limits and the parties have a continuing duty of immediate disclosure necessary to enforce the discovery provisions.id: 11886
The discovery provisions of Proposition 115 do not ease the prosection's burden under Brady to disclose exculpatory evidence.Defendant argued the new discovery chapter of Proposition 115 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to require the prosecutor to disclose all exculpatory evidence as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court in <i>Brady v. Maryland</i> (1963) 373 U.S. 83, and its progeny. However, the new provisions do not affect the defendant's constitutional right to disclosure of all exculpatory evidence in the hands of the prosecution according to <i>Brady</i>.id: 11887
The trial court did not err in allowing the testimony of an eyewitness the prosecution located during jury selection.During jury selection the prosecutor located an eyewitness. Defendant argued the trial court should have prohibited the testimony of the witness under Penal Code section 1054.5, subdivision (c). The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the witness to testify. Until the prosecutor located the witness she could not intend to call him as a witness. Once she located him she promptly fulfilled her disclosure duty. Moreover, defendant was provided with the witness' statement and was afforded an opportunity to interview the witness before he testified.id: 11891
There was no violation of the reciprocal discovery order where a witness whose identity was not disclosed pretrial was permitted to testify as a rebuttal witness.Appellant argued the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to testify as a rebuttal witness because his identity was not disclosed to appellant during pretrial discovery. However, there was no violation of the reciprocal discovery order where the rebuttal testimony was necessitated by the testimony of a defense witness. The trial court did err in failing to entertain a suppression motion prior to the officer's testimony. Nevertheless, appellant was granted a suppression hearing during the motion for new trial and the trial court found the officer's observations were legally gathered. The failure to conduct such a hearing prior to the officer's trial testimony could therefore not have been prejudicial.id: 11892
Trial court's furnishing inculpatory writings to the prosecutor did not violate defendant's privilege against self-incrimination or the reciprocal discovery statutes.Defense counsel delivered inculpatory writings to the trial court, under seal. The trial court then furnished the writings to the prosecutor. Because defendant voluntarily created the subject writings and the prosecutor obtained them from the trial court rather than defendant, there was no violation of defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Moreover, the court's delivery of the writings to the prosecutor did not violate the reciprocal discovery statutes. Contrary to defendant's claim the voluntarily created writings do not constitute compelled testimony which is not authorized by Penal Code section 1054.4.id: 11894
Any error in allowing the prosecution to discover certain of the defense investigator's reports was harmless where the reports did not controvert the defense.That defendant was the shooter was never seriously in dispute. His defense was premised upon a history of child abuse and depression which ultimately so poisoned his judgment that he was unable to control an impulse to kill his father and stepmother when the opportunity presented itself. Nothing in the investigator's reports discovered by the prosecution controverted this defense or appreciably aided the prosecution. Any error in permitting such discovery was harmless.id: 11835
Any error in providing the prosecutor with advance knowledge of a penalty phase witness' report was not prejudicial.The defense intended to call the doctor as a penalty phase witness. The trial court ordered defense counsel to provide the People with a copy of a doctor's report at the end of the People's case-in-chief at the guilt phase where the defense intended to call the doctor as a penalty phase witness. However, there was no prejudicial error since the prosecutor's advance knowledge of the doctor's report did not result in prejudicial testimony on cross-examination.id: 11836
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying African American defendant's motion to discover arrest and prosecutions of similar crimes by caucasians and police.Defendant who was charged with attempted murder and mayhem in a high profile case moved to compel production of information regarding arrests and prosecutions in Los Angeles for similar crimes committed by 1) African Americans and Hispanics, 2) Caucasians, and 3) law enforcement officers. However, law enforcement officers are not ordinary citizens and are not similarly situated in terms of the lawful use of force. Moreover, defendant did not produce relevant evidence in support of his claim that he was singled out for prosecution.id: 11837
Court did not err in allowing the People to cross-examine a defense witness with appellant's juvenile arrest report where such report had not been produced prior to trial.Appellant argued the prosecution was required to deliver or make accessible all police, arrest, and crime reports regardless of whether the information was requested in a formal discovery order. The prosecution has a duty to disclose all material evidence favorable to a defendant. However, appellant's prior arrest for battery on a police officer did not fall into that category of favorable. evidence.id: 11838
Court did not err in barring disclosure of phone numbers and addresses of four eyewitnesses to a murder where the defense did not plausibly allege the witnesses' veracity was at issue.In defendant's murder prosection, he claimed that he was entitled to discover the addresses and telephone numbers of the four eyewitnesses. The People alleged that defendant had gang affiliations and that relatives or friends attempted to intimidate the witnesses at the preliminary hearing. This was sufficient to support the court's ruling barring disclosure of the witnesses addresses and phone numbers where there was no showing by the defense that the witnesses had a bad reputation for veracity or had involvement in criminal activity.id: 11839
Court did not err in denying the motion to compel discovery of the People's capital prosecution policies and practices.Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery of the People's capital prosecution practices and policies. The facts he proffered showed that the Sacramento County District Attorney treated different defendants differently. However, those facts were insufficient to support a claim that the prosecutor's policies and practices might be arbitrary, and capricious or invidiously discriminatory. As such defendant failed to provide a plausible justification for the requested material.id: 11841
Court did not err in denying discovery of police reports involving similar cases where no perpetrator had been identified in those cases.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant discovery of 12 police reports involving other burglary-rape cases. Defense counsel opined that because defendant had been a suspect in the other crimes and not charged that a third party was responsible for the instant crime. However, because no one had been arrested or charged with those other crimes, the information in the reports would have been of no value to the defendant unless he could have solved the other crimes and identified the perpetrator.id: 11842
Court did not err in excluding surprise testimony as a sanction for failing to comply with reciprocal discovery rules.The trial court did not err in precluding an exculpatory written statement by defendant's roommate against her penal interests taken by an investigator and first proffered after the People rested. Preclusion of the statement was a sanction imposed against defendant who had the statement months before trial and refused to comply with reciprocal discovery requirements. The prosecutor complied with the informal discovery procedure but never received the written report. Contrary to defendant's claim, the prosecutor is not required to bring a formal motion to compel discovery before sanctions may be imposed. Moreover, since the statement was exculpatory, the trial court did not believe defendant's claim that he did not intend to use the statement until moments before he announced it. Finally, the sanction did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause rights. A defendant cannot disregard the rules of procedure and then claim an absolute right to present surprise testimony.id: 11843
Court did not err in refusing defendant discovery of items supporting his third party culpability defense where the entire premise was based on sheer speculation.Defendant argued he was denied due process because the trial court refused to allow him to present evidence supporting his third party culpability defense and refused him discovery of evidence from the Jacob Murray investigation. His proposed defense was that Bundy and Jack Murray committed the murders and that Bundy then murdered Murray and framed him. However, defendant showed neither a plausible justification nor prejudice. The entire premise was based on sheer speculation and the record contained no evidence whatsoever connecting Murray to the crimes. He also failed to show the evidence sought to be discovered might produce or lead to relevant evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.id: 11844
Court had no jurisdiction to entertain discovery motion after the judgment of conviction was final.A trial court, after a judgment of conviction is final, has no jurisdiction to rule on a defendants motion for discovery.id: 11845
Court lacked jurisdiction to order free-floating post judgment discovery when no criminal proceeding was then pending before it.Long after defendant's trial had ended, he moved the trial court to discover official file information about the jailhouse informant who testified against him. The court granted the order and the People sought mandate to overturn the discovery order. In issuing the writ the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order free-floating post judgment discovery when no criminal proceeding was then pending before it.id: 11846
Defendant failed to make a proper showing regarding discovery of police reports of all child molestation killings in Hollywood six months before and after the murder.At defendant's capital trial he was charged with child molestation and murder. He attempted to discover police reports pertaining to child molestation killings in the Hollywood area for the six months preceding and following the murder. Because defendant failed to provide greater specificity or a greater showing of relevance in his broad discovery request, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Even if there was error in denying the motion, it was harmless where there was no indication that similar murders did in fact take place during the relevant time period.id: 11850
Defendant failed to show plausible justification for discovery of the DA's capital charging policies where he ignored readily available case-specific data.Defendant sought to discover documents showing the district attorney's capital charging policies, practices, and decisions. The study purported to show that while only one-third of all wilful homicide victims in the county were white, all death or life-without-parole sentences were meted out in cases involving white victims. However, defendant failed to make out a prima facie case sufficient to support the requested discovery based on the absence of any factual comparison among the homicide cases despite the availability of information in the public record that could have been used to make such a comparison.id: 11851
Defendant was not entitled to full disclosure of prosecution witness' psychiatric reports.Shortly after the complaint was filed, defendant subpoenaed a private psychiatrist for records relating to psychotherapy of a prosecution witness. The parties claimed the psychotherapist-patient privilege but sanitized excerpts were released. Defendant argued the limited disclosure of the records prejudicially undermined his right to cross-examine the witness effectively at trial. However, these were not records generated by the prosecution in preparation of the case and the prosecutor had no greater access to them than defendant. It is unlikely defendant was constitutionally entitled to them even if they were material to his case. Even if he were entitled to the records, no error occurred given that on three separate occasions the records were reviewed in camera and the court concluded they contained no information significant enough to override the witness' privilege of confidential psychotherapy.id: 11853
Defendant's state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not prevent the People from obtaining information from a third party.The trial court quashed subpoenas duces tecum seeking records from various mental health professionals who treated defendant prior to the killing of her husband. The court found the subpoenas violated her state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. However, records in the possession of third parties containing evidence generated by interviews which took place before the killings may be incriminating, but their production is not the product of any compulsion upon the defendant or the defense team and the privilege against self-incrimination is therefore inapplicable. Proposition 115 discovery procedures are inapplicable to discovery from third parties. The case was remanded to allow the court to more closely examine whether specific material from each doctor was protected under defendant's psychotherapist-patient privilege.id: 11854
Defense must disclose defendant's responses to standardized tests given by a psychologist identified as a defense expert.Penal Code section 1054.3, subdivision (a) requires a defendant to disclose the results of standardized tests taken by a psychologist where the psychologist was identified as a defense expert, the psychologist relied on the test results in forming an opinion and his opinion was disclosed to the district attorney.id: 11855
Discovery order may require defendant to provide handwritten notes of an expert witness but not random notes in the expert's file or other reports the expert relied on.The pretrial discovery order required that defendant provide expert witness discovery including the expert's notes including informal or preliminary work of the expert not rising to the level of a report. The order also required production of reports of other experts which the testifying expert may have used or relied on in the preparation of his own report. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.3, the discovery order was valid to the extent that it required production of notes prepared by the testifying expert. These notes would often constitute the best evidence of the test experiment or examination. However, the order could not properly require discovery of all random notes in the expert's file. Moreover, the court's order requiring pretrial discovery of subsidiary information upon which an expert relies, but does not intend to offer in evidence was overbroad.id: 11856
Failure to order discovery of the prosecutor's jury book was not prejudicial error.Defendant argued the court erred in refusing to order discovery of the prosecutor's jury book, which showed the arrest records of venire persons and how they had voted as jurors in other trials. Assuming the court erred in failing to order discovery of the requested records, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice. Having shown no impairment of his defense resulting from the absence of the prosecutor's jury book at defense counsel table, he was not entitled to reversal.id: 11860
Failure to provide defense with the identity of the accusing student did not require reversal.At the suppression motion the dean of students testified about an allegation from a student that someone in appellant's group had a gun. The identity of the accusing student was not given to the defense along with the other discovery. The two month continuance granted by the court was sufficient to counter the new evidence. Dismissal was not required because the informant was not a material witness on the issue of guilt and the police and prosecution had no obligation to ferret out and preserve information establishing his identity.id: 11861
FBI rap sheets are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.A news organization filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the FBI rap sheets of four members of the Medico family after it was alleged that their company was dominated by organized crime figures and had obtained a number of defense contracts as a result of an improper arrangement with a corrupt Congressman. Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act exempts from disclosure information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Supreme Court, per Justice Stevens, held that as a categorical matter, FBI rap sheets are excluded from disclosure by this exemption. Justices Blackmun and Brennan concurred in the judgment, but refused to join in the majority's bright line rule.id: 11862
Immunity from discovery of certain records from health care facilities does not apply to criminal actions.Evidence Code section 1157 specifies the records and proceedings of certain committees within health care facilities or societies are immune from discovery provided they are responsible for evaluating and improving the quality of medical care. However, section 1157 does not confer immunity against criminal discovery. Even if the language of Evidence Code section 1157, subd.(e) is not facially ambiguous, the 1990 amendments to section 1157 made the records and proceedings of hospital peer review committees subject to discovery in a criminal action. A special proceeding under Penal Code section 2375 is a criminal action with regard to the issuance of a search warrant for discovery of the records of a hospital peer review committee within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1157, subd.(e).id: 11863
No statutory enforcement mechanism is necessary under Proposition 115 for a defendant to challenge the discoverability of certain requested materials.Defendant argued that the new discovery provisions under Proposition 115 contain no procedural means for a defendant to raise potential constitutional issues that might bear on whether or not certain requested materials are discoverable. However, constitutional rights of criminal defendants are self-executing and need no statutory enforcement mechanisms.id: 11865
Juvenile court erred in dismissing the proceedings for discovery abuses without considering the interests of justice.The juvenile court dismissed the robbery charges based upon discovery abuses by the prosecution. To the extent California Rules of Court, rule 1420 permits the juvenile court to dismiss a petition because of discovery abuses it is disapproved. Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 allows the juvenile court to dismiss a petition if the court finds the interest of justice and the welfare of the minor require such dismissal. The court erred in dismissing the petition for punitive reasons and failing to contemplate the interests of justice.id: 11669
Juvenile court has discretion to grant prosecution's discovery request prior to a section 707 fitness hearing.The reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115 were not intended to apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The juvenile court may, however, grant such discovery as facilitates the administration of justice. The court has discretion to order discovery prior to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 hearing. Unlike adult criminal discovery under Penal Code section 1054, set seq., where the opposing party must show good cause to deny disclosure, the burden of justifying discovery in juvenile court is on the party seeking disclosure. Where, as here, the prosecutor's discovery request includes only items listed in section 1054.3, no additional showing is required. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering disclosure.id: 11672
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245