Opinion ID: 2639585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Exclude the Investigating Officer from the Courtroom

Text: Before Homero Cardenas testified, defendant moved to exclude Detective Rodriguez from the courtroom during that testimony because Detective Rodriguez had previously interviewed Cardenas. When the district attorney stated that Detective Rodriguez was his investigating officer, the court denied the motion. Defendant contends the court erred. It did not. Evidence Code section 777, subdivision (a), permits the court to exclude witnesses from the courtroom, but subject to subdivisions (b) and (c) of that section. Subdivision (b) prohibits the court from excluding a party to the action. Subdivision (c) provides, If a person other than a natural person is a party to the action, an officer or employee designated by its attorney is entitled to be present. The word person includes a public entity (Evid. Code, § 175) such as the People of the State of California. Therefore, the deputy district attorney, the attorney for the People, could designate an officer or employee who was entitled to be present. The deputy district attorney designated Detective Rodriguez. Accordingly, Detective Rodriguez was entitled to be present. ( People ex rel. Curtis v. Peters (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 597, 192 Cal.Rptr. 70 [excluding the People's investigating officer was prejudicial error].) Defendant claims that not excluding Detective Rodriguez violated various of his constitutional rights. In effect, he argues that Evidence Code section 777, subdivision (c), is unconstitutional as applied to him. He cites no authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. Just as defendant himself, a party to the action, was entitled to be present to assist his attorney, so, too, was the prosecutor entitled to the presence of an investigating officer. The fact that Detective Rodriguez had interviewed Cardenas does not change this. Investigating officers often interview witnesses.