Opinion ID: 1168257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Materiality of the Requested Information

Text: It is against this statutory backdrop that the Court of Appeal's holding that defendant failed to establish good cause for discovery must be evaluated. In determining the question of good cause, however, we do not operate in a decisional vacuum. We have previously held that the Legislature, in adopting the statutory scheme in question, not only reaffirmed but expanded the principles of criminal discovery articulated by this court in the landmark case of Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531. ( People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 679, fn. 19, 680 [214 Cal. Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446].) These principles were applied in Pitchess to permit the discovery of police personnel records. (1) As we explained, a criminal defendant's right to discovery is based on the fundamental proposition that [an accused] is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information. ( Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 535.) Pitchess made it clear that an accused ... may compel discovery by demonstrating that the requested information will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial. (11 Cal.3d at p. 536.) In contrast to the detailed showing required by some civil discovery statutes (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985, 2036), the requisite showing in a criminal matter may be satisfied by general allegations which establish some cause for discovery other than a mere desire for all information in the possession of the prosecution. (11 Cal.3d at pp. 536-537.) The information sought must, however, be requested with adequate specificity to preclude the possibility that defendant is engaging in a `fishing expedition.' ( Id. at p. 538.) Pitchess involved an arrestee who asserted self-defense to a charge of battery on a police officer. The defendant sought discovery of records of prior complaints against the officers concerning the officers' propensity for violence. We held that the information was material, noting that the information could be used to cross-examine the officers at trial and was unquestionably relevant and admissible as character evidence of the officers' tendency to engage in violence. (11 Cal.3d at p. 537; see § 1103.) We recently returned to the issue of materiality for discovery of police records in People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 658. Memro involved an arrestee who alleged that his confession to a murder had been coerced. He sought discovery of records of prior complaints of violence against the interrogating officers. Applying the materiality standard of section 1043 (informed by the principles set forth in Pitchess ), we held that the defendant had demonstrated good cause for the information requested. (38 Cal.3d at p. 684.) Counsel's declaration asserted that the confession had been coerced. ( Id. at p. 682.) Discovery might lead to admissible evidence that the interrogating officers had a habit or custom of obtaining confessions by use of excessive force. ( Id. at p. 681; see § 1105.) Hence, we concluded that counsel's allegations sufficiently `set forth the materiality' of the requested information. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) ( Id. at p. 682.) (2) Applying these same principles to the case at bar, we are similarly persuaded that defendant here has sufficiently demonstrated the materiality of the requested records and information. Defendant is charged with resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, § 148.) The police reports make clear that considerable force was used to effect the arrest. Counsel's declaration asserts that the officers used excessive force so as to make said arrest illegal and otherwise improper. The declaration sets forth, on the basis of information and belief, a specific factual scenario to support that assertion. Counsel avers that she seeks the information relating to prior complaints of excessive force against the arresting officers to show a tendency or propensity on the part of the arresting officers[s] herein to engage in the use of unlawful and excessive force in the execution of the arrests. Viewed in conjunction with the police reports, counsel's averments establish a plausible factual foundation for an allegation of excessive force, put the court on notice that the officers' alleged use of excessive force will likely be an issue at trial, and articulate a valid theory as to how the information sought might be admissible. (See §§ 1103, 1105; Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 537; People v. Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 681-682.) Defendant has plainly demonstrated the materiality of the requested information in satisfaction of section 1043, subdivision (b).