People v. Superior Court of Tulare County

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 4th 28·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 760·77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2008F054353California10,331 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ardaiz, J.

— A defendant in a capital murder case seeks to discover information concerning a vehicle stop and in-field showup made in the vicinity of, and shortly after, the homicide. He further seeks to discover a police report concerning the initial interview of eyewitnesses to the shooting. The witness interview report cannot be located, and the officer who conducted the interview has passed away. Further, the prosecutor repeatedly, but, unbeknown to him, incorrectly, represents that no reports concerning the traffic stop exist. During jury selection, the prosecutor learns that field interview (FI) cards and photographs related to the vehicle stop have been found in possession of the police department that investigated the fatal shooting. Although the prosecutor immediately discloses the information to the defense and the trial court questions its exculpatory value, the court finds it appropriate to impose a sanction to ensure such untimely disclosure by law enforcement will not happen again. Accordingly, it dismisses the special circumstance allegation.

In this case of first impression, we hold that a trial court’s power to impose partial dismissal as a sanction for a discovery…

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.