FindLaw Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions in California. (2023)

Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, and George L. Schraer, Associate Public Defender, San Francisco, represented the defendants and appellants. John K. van der Kamp, Attorney. General, Robert H. Philibosian, Deputy Chief. artie General, kr. Div., William D. Stein, Associate. artie General, Robert R. Granucci, Michael Buzzell, Assistant Attorney General, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and defendants.

After a jury found Clarence Coyer guilty of rape (Pen.Code, §261, Subd. (2)) and false imprisonment (Pen.Code, §236), his sentence was appealed.

Perry C. was driving on the road from Sacramento to Oakland when his car broke down. Almost immediately after stopping at the shoulder, the complainant stopped to help. He claims his father owns the triple-A service at Fairfield. The applicant offered C. to drive him to the train station and arrange for his car to be towed and repaired by his father. Also around this time, California Highway Patrol Officer Fred Williams pulled up near the damaged car. Williams offered to give C. a lift to make the call, but since the complainant provided towing service, she decided to drive him to the Triple-A station.

As the complainant and C. Fairfield approached, the complainant stated that his name was "Tom Jennings". The applicant began to address C. affectionately, referring to her as his girlfriend and suggesting that she move in with him. Despite C.'s protests, the applicant deviated from the highway at Vallejo and entered an undeveloped rural area, where he raped her.

After the incident, the complainant drove to Fairfield and informed C. that he was not allowed to leave the car. However, in Fairfield, the applicant stopped at a market and asked C. to buy him a Coca-Cola. C. The complainant walked away seconds after getting out of the vehicle. The victim immediately reported the incident to the police.

About three weeks later the applicant was arrested. He denies any sexual contact between himself and C. He said he picked up C. off the freeway and dropped her off at a fairfield market.

I

The applicants are asking for a "list of the charges currently pending" of the witnesses that prosecutors expect to call before the trial. The original applicant also requested disclosure of witness arrest records, criminal records and the names of witnesses to these charges. At the motion hearing, defense attorneys acknowledged that their motion was too broad and only attempted to uncover a list of pending charges against the witnesses. The court said defense attorneys could use the court index to discover charges against witnesses pending in Solano County; he sees no connection between the charges pending in other parts of the country and a possible bias of the witnesses. The court refused to order disclosure of the pending charges; it also heard and rejected the applicant's request for a reconsideration of the judgment.

“Contrary to the legal development of civil investigations in California, the right of the accused to seek an investigation in preparation for the defense of a criminal proceeding is a court-created doctrine that evolved in the absence of applicable legislation that a right of discovery is based on the basic statement that he is entitled to a fair trial and a fair defense based on all relevant and reasonably available information [cited]” (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531, 535–536, 113 Cal .Rptr.897, 522 P.2d 305.) “The defendant could not prove that the material sought existed or was admissible as required evidence in court. (People v Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 96, 167 Cal. Rptr. 573, 615 P.2d 1361; Hill v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 812, 817, 112 Cal. Rptr. 257, 518 P.2d 1353.)"'" However, if the accused cannot readily obtain the information through his own efforts, he is generally entitled to pre-trial knowledge of any non-privileged evidence or evidence of information which may lead to discovery if such knowledge would help you. It is prudent to prepare a defense ․” [appointment. ]' [Meeting. ]” (Hill v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 812, 817, 112 Cal. Rptr. 257, 518 S.2d 1353; ⟩emphasis in the original).

Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that defendants have the right to disclose charges against prosecution witnesses anywhere in the state. Contrary to what prosecutors argue in the first court, the fact that criminal proceedings are pending is important for a witness's motivation to testify even without "an express promise of leniency or immunity". During a trial, “defense counsel may ask whether charges will be filed against a witness, since such circumstances often indicate that a witness might be seeking clemency by testifying. [cited]” (People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 638, 661, 181 Cal.Rptr. 281.) Hence in People v. Prosecution's finding: "[i] It must be emphasized that the motive for the falsification of the minor witness has no basis for the existence of a reasonable claim" (Id., p. 932, 144 Cal. Rptr. 6. ) In similar Thus, "a witness's probationary status may be used to indicate possible bias or bias due to fear of the dangers of probation," and the exclusion of such evidence may constitute a reversible error (People v. Espinoza (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 287, 291, 140 Cal.Rptr.846; see Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S.308, 94 S.Ct.1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347.) As this court in People v. Brown (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 876, 91 Cal.Rptr. 904, cert. Den 404 US 835, 92 S.Ct. 120, 30 L.Ed.2d 66 [rejected for other reasons Donald L. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 592, 102 Cal.Rptr. 850, 498 P.2d 1098 and People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.3d 698, 135 Cal.Rptr. 392, 557 p. 2d 976] It is the subjective expectations of the witness, not the objective limits of the prosecution's influence, that determine: the actual power of the authorities to help or harm him is disputed." (Id., S 883, 135 Cal.Rptr 392, 557 p.2d 976; emphasis in original text.) Also operates independently of local probation, probation and juvenile boards Consider all of these entities as a single law enforcement agency. The defendant certainly has the right to stand trial if a witness's concerns about charges pending in another county have caused him or her to testify for prosecution in that country Summary Judgment (See People v. Allen, supra, 77 Cal.App.3d 924, 932–933, 144 Cal.Rptr. 6.)

The applicant seeks to find information that may lead to admissible evidence at trial and help in the preparation of his defense. The other requirements for a criminal discovery are also met. The information has not been claimed as confidential; In fact, as the trial court said, it was a matter of public records. A list of the charges currently pending against witnesses for the prosecution can be compiled from the information available to the prosecution. (Hill v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 812, 817-818, 112 Cal.Rptr. 257, 518 P.2d 1353; Engstrom v. Superior Court (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 240, 244-245 , 97 Cal. Rptr. 484;⟩See also Penal Code Section 11105.) There are no similar records, and defense attorneys can obtain such information themselves. We therefore conclude that the court abused its discretion by refusing to order the prosecutor to provide the defense attorney with a list of all criminal charges pending against the prosecution's witnesses.

Now we need to consider the implications of improperly restricting discovery. Contrary to the applicant's contention, California's improper refusal of discovery by a court or failure by a prosecutor to make an inherently reversible error. The burden of proof of bias lies with the defendant. (See People v. Sewell (1978) 20 Cal.3d 639, 646, 143 Cal.Rptr. 879, 574 P.2d 1231; People v. LaSalle (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 139, 153-154, 162 Cal. Rptr. 816.) According to this record, the use of traditional innocuous error analysis would actually be "speculative" since we do not know whether compliance with the defendant's motion will uncover pending charges. Nevertheless, there is a remedy. No physical evidence was destroyed. The information originally requested by the complainant remains available to the public prosecutor. (Cf. People v. Zamora, supra, 28 Cal.3d 88, 167 Cal.Rptr. 573, 615 p.2d 1361.) In Commonwealth v. Slaughter (1978) 482 Pa. 538 [394 A.2d 453] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court faces the same problem. There the court erred in Davis v. Alaska, above, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, denial of defense counsel's access to child witness records, where available. Rather than an immediate reversal, Slaughter ordered the following injunction:

"(The records do not even state whether Ragland actually has a juvenile delinquency, much less whether such a record, if any, would support the applicant's claim of bias.) juvenile files through his counsel. Counsel will then be able to argue before the trial court which records, if any, it would have used had it been allowed to use them to cross-examine Ragland, give the jury evidence of possible bias in Ragland or other information that would bring the case to court should Davis, supra, set aside the judgment and a new court order finds that the applicant has not submitted facts to make the case compatible with Davis' motives, his original order must be upheld become. seek an adequate remedy” (Commonwealth v. Slaughter, supra, 482 Pa. 538 [394 A.2d 453, 460]).

In such cases, no California court has ordered detention for ascertained errors; however, such provisions are not unknown in criminal proceedings involving other forms of error. In people v. Moll (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 194, 163 Cal.Rptr. 501, this court found an error pointing to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 465 P.2d 44 when the trial court failed to examine the reasons why the defendant had requested the appointment of another counsel. Since the trial log itself was error-free, it is appropriate to act on the basis of concrete pre-trial errors. “In dealing with criminal matters, the Court of Appeal is not limited to the more usual option of affirming, setting aside, or amending the impugned judgment or decision. The court "may, if appropriate, remit the case to the court of first instance for additional proceedings in the circumstances." "(Pen. Code, §€1260) ․ However, if the process was free from partial errors and the appeal prevailed, the appeal only found that there was an unresolved issue which may or may not invalidate the judgment, and the Court of Appeal in some cases decides the court to take evidence, resolve outstanding ones and institute further proceedings to confirm a decision so made” (People v. Minor, supra, 104 Cal. App. 3d 194, 199, 163 Cal. Rptr. See People v. Vanbuskirk (1976) 61 Cal App 3d 395, 405-407, 132 Cal Rptr 30 [Resubmission of evidence on the fairness of the pre-trial accreditation process].

Defendants request, pursuant to Section 909 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 23(b) of the California Courts Code, that this court not remit the matter to the trial court and instead appoint a judge to establish evidence of the existence of the pendency of the indictment and establish the facts of the case clear up against the witnesses for the prosecution. Even in civil appeals, "the determination of fact under rule 23 is a special procedure which should be used with caution and only when expressly required..." (Jacobs v. State Bd. of Optometry (1978) 81 Cal. App. .3d 1022, 1034, 147 Cal. Rptr. 225.) These provisions generally do not apply to criminal appeals by jury. (People v. Pena (1972) 25 Cal. App. 3d 414, 421, 101 Cal. Rptr. 804, dis. for other reasons in People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 282, 292, 127 Cal. Rptr 618, 545 P.2d 1322.) The Supreme Court is the forum chosen to exercise evidence and resolve issues of fact. If the resolution of issues raised on appeal requires consideration of issues outside of the trial record, the appellate court will generally allow the accused to present that evidence to the trial court first. (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582–584, 189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144.) In particular, Minor and Vanbuskirk show that the California Court of Appeals can order this slaughter to fix the found error.

The judgment was reversed and the trial court was ordered to order the prosecutors to provide the applicant's counsel with a list of pending criminal charges against prosecution witnesses at the trial. If no such charge is made by then, the court will reinstate the original sentence and sentence. If any of these charges are pending, the court will weigh the weight of this new evidence against the entire record and decide whether to grant the complainant a new trial.

Part of this Opinion has not been published because the publication criteria were not met. (Cal. Court Rules, Rules 976 and 976.1.)

Christian, righteousness.

CALDECOTT, P.J. and POCHÉ, J. agree.