Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Withholding photographs of defendant's genitals

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecution wrongfully withheld from the defense certain photographs of defendant's genitals. The relevant facts are these: On August 31, 1988, the day defendant was arraigned and entered a not guilty plea, the prosecutor asked the trial court to order that defendant's body be examined by the investigating officer and photographed if anything is revealed as a result of the examination. Deputy Public Defender Charles Khum, who represented defendant at the arraignment, objected to the request. He added, however, that in the event the court does sign this, I would like the court to order that I would be allowed to be present at the time that the search is made or that the viewing is made. The prosecutor voiced no objection to such presence, and the trial court then granted the prosecution's request for a physical examination of defendant. More than three years later, after the jury returned a death penalty verdict, defendant moved for a new trial ( 1181), asserting for the first time that during the physical examination in August 1988, photographs were taken of his genitals but withheld from the defense. In a supporting declaration, Deputy Public Defender Klum stated that, together with medical personnel and members of the defense team, he was present at the Antelope Valley Municipal Court's lockup facility for both the physical examination and the taking of photographs, and that he heard comments by those conducting the physical examination that defendant's penis showed no tearing or injuries. Defendant's own declaration stated that in the course of the August 31, 1988, physical examination, photographs were taken of my genital area. In opposing defendant's motion for a new trial, the prosecution presented a declaration by its investigator, Detective Edwin Milkey, that after a cursory examination of defendant's genitals he determined there was nothing remarkable, and thus no photographs were taken, either on August 31, 1988, or at any later time. The trial court denied defendant's motion for a new trial. It ruled that photographs, if any, taken of defendant's genitals during the August 31, 1988, physical examination would not be material on the issue of defendant's guilt in light of the conclusion of those conducting the examination that there was no tearing or injury to defendant's penis. That conclusion was made in the presence of, and heard by, Deputy Public Defender Charles Klum. The Attorney General points out that because the claimed photographs did not exist, there was nothing to turn over to the defense, noting that there is only defendant's self-serving declaration that the prosecution had such photographs. The Attorney General notes that although the declaration of Deputy Public Defender Klum mentions those who were present for the taking of photographs, it does not state that Klum saw anyone take any photographs. We need not resolve the factual dispute. We agree with the trial court that any photographs taken during the August 31, 1988, physical examination would not qualify under the relevant constitutional standard as material evidence. ( Kyles v. Whitley, supra, 514 U.S. 419, 433-434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490; In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th 535, 543, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527.) It is not reasonably probable ( ibid. ), given the evidence of defendant's personal culpability in this case, that the jury would have reached more favorable verdicts on guilt or on penalty had it known that photographs taken six days after the rape and sodomy of 18-month-old Amanda Doshier showed no tearing or bruising on defendant's penis.