People v. Matthews CA3

DISCUSSION

I Pitchess Motion Defendant requests that we independently review the trial court’s ruling regarding his Pitchess motion. “A trial court’s decision on the discoverability of material in police personnel files is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220-1221 (Jackson).) To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the appellate court must review the record of the documents examined by the trial court. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229.) A defendant is entitled to “meaningful appellate review” of the confidential documents, and a trial court may preserve the record by stating which documents it examined. (Ibid.) Where, as here, the trial court reviewed a document that was subsequently destroyed, a constitutional error exists only if it appears the record was destroyed in bad

3 faith. (Jackson, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1221, fn. 10; People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 831-832.) The custodian of records does not explain in his sworn declaration why the files examined by the trial court regarding Officer O’Shea were destroyed as of July 2015. Based on our review of the sealed…