Opinion ID: 1249738
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Substance of Testimony.

Text: (42) Defendant first asserts that he had a right both as a matter of state law and under the Sixth Amendment to know the substance of Rooks's and Acker's testimony before the case was called for trial. Under section 190.3, the prosecution must furnish the defense with notice of evidence in aggravation within a reasonable period of time as determined by the court, prior to trial. Section 190.3's plain language gives the court discretion to determine what amount of notice is reasonable, but the evidence must be given to a defendant before the case is called. ( People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 879 [277 Cal. Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906].) The statute does not require production of the evidence, however, but notice of it. (§ 190.3.) The prosecutor provided notice that Rooks and Acker would be called to testify about the stabbings. The defense was not entitled to a summation of the witnesses' expected testimony. There was no state law error. Nor was there any Sixth Amendment violation. (See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, supra, 480 U.S. 39, 52-53 [94 L.Ed.2d 40, 54-55] [pretrial discovery request].)