Filed 10/26/21 P. v. Kanas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ADAM JOHN KANAS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G058847

 (Super. Ct. No. 16WF1821)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven 

D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Marlene Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Lise Jacobson and 

Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
2

Defendant Adam John Kanas was convicted of murder and two counts of 

driving under the influence of drugs. The only truly contested issue at trial was whether 

he was under the influence at the time he drove. Based on several misstatements in a 

search warrant affidavit, defendant moved to review certain categories of personnel 

records relating to the responding officer pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 

11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). The court granted the request but found no discoverable 

documents. We agree with defendant that he is entitled to review of the trial court’s 

ruling under Pitchess. Having undertaken this review, we find no error and therefore 

affirm the judgment.

I

FACTS

As relevant to this appeal, on the morning of August 15, 2016, defendant’s 

Chevy Tahoe, driving at freeway speeds, crashed into another car on the freeway. That 

car was stopped in traffic, and the collision killed a 10-year-old girl and injured the

driver, her father, and his other child.

California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Todd Steaffens was dispatched to 

the scene of the collision and arrived at about 9:26 a.m. He observed that defendant 

“seemed confused about the whole thing” and “out of it.” Defendant made several 

comments, including “‘accidents happen all the time’” and “‘I guess two cups of coffee 

weren’t enough.’” He did not seem to understand the gravity of the collision.

Steaffens did not observe any injuries to defendant, but his pupils were 

constricted and he was lethargic. A Los Angeles County arson investigator, who had 

been certified as an emergency medical technician earlier in his career, was driving to 

work when he came upon the accident scene and pulled over to assist. He testified 

defendant’s eyes were “pinpoint.” A CHP officer who was a certified Drug Recognition 

Expert at the time testified defendant was lethargic but coherent with slow and slurred 
3

speech. A motorist who stopped to help also observed defendant’s eyes as “dilated” and 

“bulging.” Steaffens believed defendant was under the influence and placed him under 

arrest.

At the station, defendant’s speech was slow and slurred, and he fell asleep 

while talking to officers at one point. Defendant told officers that he took 75 milligrams 

of Trazadone the previous night, but said he did not feel the effects of the medication. He 

told Steaffens he slept for eight hours and had breakfast before starting his drive.

Defendant was taken to the hospital when he said he had head, neck, and 

lower back pain. His blood was drawn at 1:10 p.m.

Steaffens subsequently filled out and signed a search warrant affidavit. It 

included numerous errors, including that he had been conducting a traffic stop and had 

observed the car driving, when neither of those had happened. The affidavit also named 

another individual as the driver, in addition to other misstatements that did not reflect the 

incident at issue. The search warrant was issued, resulting in a second blood draw at 3:10 

p.m.

Toxicology results from both blood draws indicated the presence of 

numerous prescription drugs in defendant’s system, including alprazolam, carisoprodol, 

meprobamate, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and acetaminophen. Alprazolam, carisoprodol, 

and meprobamate are central nervous system depressants and muscle relaxants. 

Oxycodone is a pain relief medication that could cause confusion, sedation, and 

drowsiness. Oxymorphone was in the same family of drugs and had the same effects. 

The amounts of oxycodone and oxymorphone exceeded the average range of therapeutic 

dosages.

The parties later stipulated that defendant had pleaded guilty to driving 

under the influence of drugs in 2015 and had been placed on probation. His plea 

agreement included an advisement pursuant to People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290,

that driving while impaired is dangerous and could lead to a murder charge.
4

Defendant was charged with second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, 

subd. (a)),

1

and two counts of driving under the influence of drugs causing bodily injury 

with one prior (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (e)), with an allegation defendant caused great 

bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), as to the Vehicle Code violations. Two prior 

convictions were also alleged.

Prior to trial, defendant moved for discovery of Steaffens’s personnel 

records pursuant to Pitchess. The motion requested various materials relating to, among 

other things, “dishonesty, false arrest, perjury, writing false police reports, writing of 

false police reports to cover incorrect procedure, fabrication of charges, fabrication of

evidence, fabrication of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, illegal

search/seizure, planting or concealing of evidence, false or misleading internal reports.” 

The court found good cause and granted the motion. After its in camera review, the court 

stated in open court that it had found nothing to disclose.

At the conclusion of trial, a jury found appellant guilty of all charges and 

the great bodily injury enhancements true. The court vacated one of the driving under the 

influence counts while retaining the great bodily injury enhancement connected to that 

count. The court sentenced defendant to a total of 24 years to life.

II

DISCUSSION

Under Pitchess, a defendant may bring a motion for disclosure of certain 

relevant information in the personnel files of police officers by showing good cause for 

discovery and how it would support a defense to the charge against him. (§§ 832.7,

832.8; Evid. Code, §§ 1043-1045; Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 

1018-1019.)

1

Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
5

Once a defendant has made a showing of good cause, “the trial court must 

examine the records in camera to determine if any information should be disclosed. 

[Citations.] The court may not disclose complaints over five years old, conclusions 

drawn during an investigation, or facts so remote or irrelevant that their disclosure would 

be of little benefit.” (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 424.) To facilitate the 

court’s review, “the custodian of records should bring to court all documents ‘potentially 

relevant’ to the defendant’s motion.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.)

Following a review of the documents in chambers, and “[s]ubject to statutory exceptions 

and limitations . . . the trial court should then disclose to the defendant ‘such information 

[that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.’” (Ibid.)

Pitchess rulings are reviewable for abuse of discretion. (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 

Cal.5th 306, 338.)

Defendant contends that he is entitled to appellate review of the in camera 

proceeding, and we agree. Defendant requested an order from this court to the CHP 

directing it to transmit the underlying materials to this court for review. We denied the 

motion. (See People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1229-1230.)

To the extent the trial court retained any documents related to the Pitchess

motion, we treated the motion as one to augment the record and granted it. We received 

a clerk’s affidavit stating the documents had not been retained. The court’s on-the-record 

description of the documents during its in camera review, however, is more than 

sufficient for our purposes.

During the in camera hearing, the representative from the CHP stated under 

oath that she had brought all potentially relevant records and a complete and thorough 

search had been made for the records. The court reviewed the materials carefully, one at 

a time, and discussed the nature of each document on the record. Based on our review of 

the court’s findings that no discoverable materials existed, we conclude the trial court 

properly exercised its discretion. We find no error.
6

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

FYBEL, J.