Hernandez

Hernandez v. City of Pomona

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 955·49 Cal. App. 4th 1492·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406·96 Daily Journal DAR 12307·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7530
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 8, 1996B087779California10,735 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Aranda, J.

I concur completely in the majority decision and reasoning. Even so, I must stress that the protection of witnesses should be of paramount public concern.

One of the principal foundations of our free society is our community’s belief in the integrity of law enforcement. The minor herein, Moisés Torrez, cooperated with law enforcement by voluntarily giving a statement. It matters not who he was or why he was at the scene of the crime. It is and it should continue to be the strong public policy of this state that persons who witness a crime must be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement.

I see no misconduct by the police officers. The facts herein can only lead to the conclusion that the police officers meant what they said at the time *1506 they guaranteed to Moisés Torrez that his statement would not put him in danger.

The county’s deputy district attorney deliberately and intentionally violated the detectives’ guarantee. Thus, the police officers’ warranty given to Moisés Torrez when he gave his statement was rendered meaningless by the deliberate and calculated action of the county’s deputy district attorney. The district attorney herein was also a named defendant in…

Lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff and appellant Maria Hernandez appeals from the dismissal 1 of her complaint for wrongful death after demurrers were sustained without leave to amend on behalf of defendants and respondents, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Pomona, and Officers Gregg Guenther and Raul Camargo (collectively the City of Pomona defendants). 2 We affirm the trial court’s ruling that, under the circumstances alleged by plaintiff, respondents owed no duty to protect plaintiff’s deceased son from retaliation by fellow gang members against whom he provided incriminating evidence.

*1496 Factual and Procedural Background

The allegations as stated in the operative second amended complaint are as follows. In the spring of 1991, one Mildred Damper was fatally shot. In the course of investigating the murder, the City of Pomona determined that members of the Happy Town gang may have been involved. Plaintiff’s 16-year-old son, Moisés Torrez, was affiliated with the Happy Town gang.

Detectives Gregg Guenther and Raul Camargo of the Pomona Police Department went to plaintiff’s home several times to speak to Torrez about the murder. Torrez was later taken in by the police for…

Opinion

VOGEL (C.S.), P.J. —

Plaintiff and appellant Maria Hernandez appeals from the dismissal [1] of her complaint for wrongful death after demurrers were sustained without leave to amend on behalf of defendants and respondents, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Pomona, and Officers Gregg Guenther and Raul Camargo (collectively the City of Pomona defendants). [2] We affirm the trial court's ruling that, under the circumstances alleged by plaintiff, respondents owed no duty to protect plaintiff's deceased son from retaliation by fellow gang members against whom he provided incriminating evidence.

The allegations as stated in the operative second amended complaint are as follows. In the spring of 1991, one Mildred Damper was fatally shot. In the course of investigating the murder, the City of Pomona determined that members of the Happy Town gang may have been involved. Plaintiff's 16-year-old son, Moises Torrez, was affiliated with the Happy Town gang.

Detectives Gregg Guenther and Raul Camargo of the Pomona Police Department went to plaintiff's home several times to speak to Torrez about the murder. Torrez was later taken in by the police for questioning. At that time,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.