Opinion ID: 1351466
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Discovery of Police Reports

Text: Defendant attempted to discover police reports pertaining to child molestation killings in the Hollywood area for the six months preceding and following the murder. The court sustained a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum to obtain these reports. In support of the motion, the prosecutor argued that defendant was merely engaging in a fishing expedition, and was required to make a greater showing that the reports would be relevant. The Los Angeles City Attorney, also arguing in support of the motion, asserted that compliance with the discovery request would result in the violation of privacy rights of persons mentioned as suspects in the reports but not arrested, citing Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal. App.3d 69 [161 Cal. Rptr. 19]. (19a) Defendant now contends the motion to quash was incorrectly sustained. (20) As a rule, a criminal defendant may compel discovery by demonstrating that the requested information will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial. ( Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 536 [113 Cal. Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305].) But the trial court has discretion `to protect against the disclosure of information which might unduly hamper the prosecution or violate some other legitimate governmental interest,' or when there is an `absence of a showing which specifies the material sought and furnishes a plausible justification for inspection [citations].' ( Hill v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 812, 817 [112 Cal. Rptr. 257, 518 P.2d 1353, 95 A.L.R.3d 820].) Although policy may favor granting liberal discovery to criminal defendants, courts may nevertheless refuse to grant discovery if the burdens placed on government and on third parties substantially outweigh the demonstrated need for discovery. (See Lemelle v. Superior Court (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 148, 165 [143 Cal. Rptr. 450]; Craig v. Municipal Court, supra, 100 Cal. App.3d 69, 77-79.) Thus in Lemelle the court concluded that the defendant's request for 10 years' worth of arrest reports of 2 police officers pertaining to charges of resisting arrest was overbroad, particularly in light of the fact that most of the information regarding past complaints against the officers had already been obtained through a Pitchess motion. In addition, a significant burden would have been placed on police resources by compelling them to review such a large volume of material. (19b) In the present case defendant's request was broad and somewhat burdensome, both with regard to expenditure of police resources to review files and to the privacy interests of third parties. Moreover, he made no specific allegations that similar sexual molestation/child murders had occurred in Hollywood during the same period that might justify the imposition of such a burden. (Cf. City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal. App.3d 1118 [252 Cal. Rptr. 789] [defendant's discovery request granted for 12 homicide investigation reports on murders similar to the murder with which he was charged].) Because defendant failed to provide greater specificity or a greater showing of relevance in his broad discovery request, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. Moreover, even if the court erred in denying the request, no prejudice resulted. There is no indication that similar murders did in fact take place in the Hollywood area during the relevant period. On the contrary, Detective Thies testified on cross-examination that no such similar murders had occurred. Defendant does not show a reasonable probability that the trial's outcome would have been different had the discovery request been granted. Defendant also attempted to obtain the police reports after the cross-examination of Detective Thies, during which examination he admitted to having reviewed Hollywood police reports for the relevant period and found no similar crime. The request was refused, with the court relying on its ruling on the original discovery request. (21) Defendant now contends that a separate issue was raised after Thies testified to having actually viewed the requested police reports. He claims he was entitled at that point to the police reports under the Evidence Code, which requires that if a witness, either while testifying or prior thereto, uses a writing to refresh his memory with respect to any matter about which he testifies, such writing must be produced at the hearing at the request of an adverse party. (Evid. Code, § 771, subd. (a).) Without deciding at present whether the police reports used by Detective Thies constitute a writing within the meaning of this statute, we note that the remedy for failure to produce the writing is that the testimony on which it is based shall be stricken. ( Ibid. ) There is no reasonable probability that the striking of Thies's testimony on the lack of similar murders in the Hollywood area during the relevant period would have affected the outcome of this case, and therefore any error cannot have been prejudicial. Finally, defendant contends that denial of these police reports after Detective Thies relied on them during his testimony violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. No objection on this ground was made below, and the issue is therefore waived on appeal.