Opinion ID: 1159477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Asserted Suppression of Evidence by the Prosecutor

Text: (14a) Baker also claims that the district attorney suppressed evidence at the guilt trial. The assertedly suppressed evidence apparently consists of testimony by Forrest Patterson that was introduced at the penalty trial. Patterson's testimony concerned extrajudicial statements by Brawley in which he admitted that he stabbed the taxicab driver and expressed lack of remorse. (15) The suppression by the prosecution of material evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecutor. ( Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218, 83 S.Ct. 1194]; In re Lessard, 62 Cal.2d 497, 508-509 [42 Cal. Rptr. 583, 399 P.2d 39]; In re Imbler, 60 Cal.2d 554, 567-569 [35 Cal. Rptr. 293, 387 P.2d 6].) (14b) Here, however, it does not appear that the assertedly suppressed evidence would have been favorable to Baker at the guilt trial. Brawley's admissions constitute inadmissible hearsay as to Baker. ( People v. Luker, 63 Cal.2d 464, 476 [47 Cal. Rptr. 209, 407 P.2d 9]; People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 489 [254 P.2d 501].) Also, even had the evidence of the admissions been received at the guilt trial and had the jury ignored an instruction limiting the evidence to Brawley, the evidence would not have tended to exculpate Baker since the jury was instructed on the law of conspiracy and aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Furthermore, the record does not show that the district attorney suppressed the evidence. At the penalty trial defense counsel objected to the use of Patterson's testimony unless the district attorney made an offer of proof that the witness was unknown before the last motion for discovery [i.e. one made on December 5, 1966]. The district attorney thereupon stated that he did not know of Patterson until after the jury retired at the guilt trial [i.e. December 13, 1966]  that at that time when he returned to his office he found his investigator there with Patterson. Baker points to testimony by Patterson that during the latter part of November 1966 he told a deputy sheriff about what [Patterson] discussed here, and Baker asserts that it is obvious that this information was transmitted to the office of the District Attorney before December 5. However, in the absence of proof that it was so transmitted, we cannot assume that it was. It further appears from Patterson's testimony that the information he gave to the deputy sheriff he also gave to the district attorney's investigator, and it may be inferred from Patterson's testimony that the date he gave the information to the investigator was December 5, 1966. Until the information was given to the district attorney, however, he manifestly could not furnish it to Baker.