Opinion ID: 1128898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Arrest and Detention Records, i.e., Rap Sheet, if Any, of Sillence

Text: Sillence's rap sheet, if it exists, might contain information regarding arrests or detentions for prior burglaries or attempted burglaries, and such information conceivably might lead to the discovery of evidence of prior offenses by Sillence having a distinctive modus operandi common to both the prior offenses and the offense with which petitioner is charged. Even if it be assumed that such evidence would be admissible as tending to show that Sillence committed the instant offense, a matter that might affect his credibility by showing he had a motive to lie, it does not follow that respondent erred in denying discovery of the arrest and detention records, if any. The mere fact that the public defender's declaration alleged that it was necessary those records be made available to him and petitioner so that they may properly prepare for trial does not show respondent erred in denying discovery. (9) In view of the minimal showing of the worth of the information sought and the fact that requiring discovery on the basis of such a showing could deter eyewitnesses from reporting crimes, we are satisfied that respondent did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery of those records, if they exist. Before ruling, respondent inquired whether there were any facts in petitioner's declaration indicating that Sillence may have been involved other than his claiming to have been an eyewitness, and the public defender replied, No.... The public defender also advised the court that Sillence was the one who initially called the police apparently regarding the crime charged against petitioner. Even if Sillence committed prior offenses having a distinctive modus operandi common to both the prior offenses and the offense charged, that fact, together with his calling the police and claiming to have been an eyewitness to the offense charged would not, without more, warrant a reasonable belief that Sillence committed that offense and therefore had an interest in the case which might affect his credibility. Those facts at best would raise only a suspicion that Sillence might have committed the instant offense. And in the words of respondent court, it seems ... that what [the public defender is] suggesting [i.e., allowing discovery of Sillence's arrest and detention records, if any] would have an awesome effect on people reporting crime. Engstrom v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal. App.3d 240, cited by petitioner in support of his request for discovery of Sillence's arrest and detention records, differs from the instant case. There the petitioner, who was charged with murder and assault, sought discovery of, inter alia, the arrest records of the victims that related to any act of violence to prove that the victims initiated the attacks. An affidavit in support of the discovery motion alleged in part that petitioner will raise the defense of selfdefense, and the affidavit set forth petitioner's version of the facts related to the police, which version was in accord with his intended defense. Engstrom, after noting that specific acts of aggression by the victim may be admissible to show that the victim was the aggressor (see Evid. Code, § 1103), held that (p. 245), where a claim of self-defense is offered, and the alleged victim of an offense is claimed to have been the aggressor, information concerning arrests for specific acts of aggression by the alleged victim must be produced if available to the prosecutor. The instant case manifestly does not come within the specific holding of Engstrom  petitioner has not claimed self-defense and Sillence is not a victim. Moreover, in Engstrom other evidence that the victims were the aggressors (i.e., the defendant's testimony) presumably was available, and it is unlikely that requiring disclosure of the records of the victims would have any significant effect on the reporting of crimes. Petitioner also cites In re Ferguson, 5 Cal.3d 525, 531 [96 Cal. Rptr. 594, 487 P.2d 1234], wherein we held that the intentional suppression by the prosecutor of information in an alleged victim's rap sheet deprived the defendant of a fair trial under the circumstances there appearing, but the circumstances of that case are totally dissimilar to the ones here appearing. Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondent to set aside its order denying discovery and to grant discovery in accordance with the views expressed herein.