Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Provide Coroner's Report

Text: Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by withholding a vital coroner's report, thereby violating the discovery statute (§ 1054.1) and his constitutional rights. The record discloses, however, that the report was prepared during the trial and provided to defendant at the earliest possible opportunity. On the morning of Monday, December 12, 1994, just prior to the testimony of medical examiner Eva Heuser, the prosecution provided the defense a report from Dr. Heuser, prepared on the preceding Friday, December 9, entitled Microscopic Report. The report contained Dr. Heuser's analysis of slides of tissue taken from the victim's vaginal and anal walls as well as perineal tissue. The analysis showed evidence of trauma and supported Dr. Heuser's conclusion that the injuries occurred while the victim was still alive. The prosecutor explained that on the previous Friday, in preparation for Dr. Heuser's testimony, he had her pull the slides and take a look at them in light of specific questions he had for her, and prepare a report. The prosecutor stated the report was confirmatory of the testimony Dr. Heuser had previously given, presumably before the grand jury. Dr. Heuser later testified she had intended to prepare such a report when she had first examined the slides but had forgotten to do so. The defense requested a continuance of an unspecified amount of time. The trial court denied the request, noting the defense had had access to the original coroner's report and to Dr. Heuser's grand jury testimony, and the defense could have simply have called Dr. Heuser with any questions. Later that day, in connection with a mistrial motion based on defense counsel's allegation his cross-examination had been unfairly limited, counsel returned to the report. He asserted that Dr. Heuser's conclusion that the injuries occurred premortem was new material and asked either that the defense be granted a continuance or that the report be excluded. The trial court denied defendant's motions. It reiterated its finding that the prosecution had timely disclosed the report. It also observed that, despite the court's urgings, the defense had not yet called in its expert to examine the report. Section 1054.1, subdivision (f) requires the prosecutor to disclose to the defense [r]elevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports of the statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial, including any reports or statements of experts made in conjunction with the case, including the results of ... scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the prosecutor intends to offer in evidence. Such disclosure must be made at least 30 days before trial, but [i]f the material and information becomes known to, or comes into the possession of, a party within 30 days of trial, disclosure shall be made immediately.... (§ 1054.7.) Here, the trial court found Dr. Heuser's report was a new report and that disclosure was timely under the statute. Although defendant concedes it could be argued the report was turned over within a reasonable time after it was prepared, he asserts that the prosecutor intentionally delayed having Dr. Heuser prepare the report to avoid discovery. Nothing in the record supports this imputation of misconduct to the prosecution. It is settled, moreover, that the prosecution has no general duty to seek out, obtain, and disclose all evidence that might be beneficial to the defense. ( In re Littlefield, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 135, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 248, 851 P.2d 42.) Therefore, the prosecution did not commit misconduct simply because it failed to ask Dr. Heuser to prepare the report sooner. Moreover, there was apparently no information in the report to which defendant did not already have access. He argues that  regardless of the content of the report he was prejudiced because the prosecutor's unexpected presentation of it to the defense hampered his ability to adequately prepare for his examination of the coroner. But defendant's failure to adequately prepare for cross-examination cannot be attributed to the belated production of a report containing information already in his possession. We conclude that disclosure of the report was timely. Necessarily, then, we reject the edifice of constitutional error that defendant constructs upon his claim of discovery violation. Defendant alternatively contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance of unspecified length. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in its denial of the continuance request and, in any event, no prejudice. ( People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 840, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 938 P.2d 2.)