People v. Johnson

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 292·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 676·2004 Daily Journal DAR 5365·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3843
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 2004G032076California4,541 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Wendell Phillips Johnson was charged with two counts of attempted possession of a controlled substance (Pen. Code, § 664; Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). Before trial, defendant filed a motion under Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1047 (known as a Pitchess motion named after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ] (Pitchess)). (All further statutory references are to the Evidence Code unless otherwise specified.) On information and belief, defendant’s counsel’s declaration asserted a Santa Ana police officer untruthfully claimed defendant asked to purchase “chiva” (slang for heroin) and “powder” (slang for cocaine) from the officer and the defendant “maintains he never asked the officer for ‘chiva’ or ‘powder’ or negotiated for the purchase of either substance.” Defendant’s motion sought to discover the officer’s personnel records pertaining to incidents “involving dishonesty, and/or the filing of false reports.” The trial court summarily denied defendant’s Pitchess motion.

At trial, the officer testified he had been posing as a drug dealer in an…

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.