People v. Municipal Court (Bonner)

I respectfully dissent. The majority’s decision directing vacation of the trial court’s discovery order runs counter to the basic principle underlying criminal discovery.

The rationale for criminal discovery was recently summarized in People v. Municipal Court (Street) (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 739 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 69 ], where the court stated: “Although the California Supreme Court has not yet established a method of ascertaining whether or not discovery of a given item is necessary to accord defendant a fair trial (Louisell & Wally, Modern Cal. Discovery, supra, at p. 885), underlying the rationale of criminal discovery is the principle first stated in People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 586 [ 305 P.2d 1 ] (app. dism. 358 U.S. 646 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 568 , 79 S.Ct. 537 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 388 P.2d 33 , 12 A.L.R.3d 810 ]): ‘Absent some governmental requirement that information be kept confidential for the purposes of effective law enforcement, the state has no interest in denying the accused access to all evidence that can throw light on issues in the case,. . . ’ Justice Traynor wrote: ‘There remains to be articulated…

The People appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writs of prohibition and mandate. The appeal is meritorious, and the judgment will be reversed with directions to the trial court to issue a peremptory writ of mandate.

Susan Michelle Bonner (real party in interest) was charged in the San Bernardino County Municipal Court District, West Valley Division, with unlawfully using force and violence upon the person of Ontario Police Officer Richard Condon, knowing that he was a police officer engaged in the performance of his duty. (Pen. Code, § 243.) Through counsel real party noticed a motion for discovery, seeking, inter alia, any and all complaints filed against Officer Condon relating to excessive force in the performance of his duties and copies of any and all police reports prepared by Officer Condon in the preceding three years concerning alleged violations of Penal Code sections 148 (resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty) or 243 (battery upon a peace officer in the performance of his duties). [1]

After argument, the court granted real party's motion for discovery as to the two items just specified. [2]…

The People appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writs of prohibition and mandate. The appeal is meritorious, and the judgment will be reversed with directions to the trial court to issue a peremptory writ of mandate.

Facts

Susan Michelle Bonner (real party in interest) was charged in the San Bernardino County Municipal Court District, West Valley Division, with unlawfully using force and violence upon the person of Ontario Police Officer Richard Condon, knowing that he was a police officer engaged in the performance of his duty. (Pen. Code, § 243.) Through counsel real party noticed a motion for discovery, seeking, inter alia, any and all complaints filed against Officer Condon relating to excessive force in the performance of his duties and copies of any and all police reports prepared by Officer Condon in the preceding three years concerning alleged violations of Penal Code sections 148 (resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty) or 243 (battery upon a peace officer in the performance of his duties).

After argument, the court granted real party’s motion for discovery as to the two items just specified. 2 Although that…