Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution's failure to disclose tape recording

Text: Also not material to either guilt or penalty was the tape recording of a conversation between baby Amanda's grandmother, Diane Ellison, and her son Jeff that defendant claims was wrongfully withheld from the defense. Ellison and Dennis Morgan, who defendant claimed was responsible for baby Amanda's injuries, had lived together for a while after Morgan's release from Susanville Prison, but later had a falling-out. During direct examination by the prosecutor, Ellison testified that she had assisted the defense investigators by providing them with Morgan's name and telephone number but had given no information about Morgan to the prosecution. Ellison denied she had ever done some favors for defense investigator Paul Ford. She acknowledged, however, that in a fit of temper she might have told her son Jeff that a defense investigator owed her a favor. After a brief recess in the trial, the prosecutor resumed questioning Ellison. Ellison said that a tape recording the prosecution had played during the recess jogged her memory about the conversation she had with Jeff. The prosecutor then asked, Did you in fact make a statement to your son, Jeff, that you were going to call [defendant's] investigators or investigator because they owed you some favors? Ellison replied, In calming a hysterical child down yes, I did. At one point, the prosecutor asked Ellison if she wanted to hear the tape recording again, so you can tell us what about the tape would make you feel [Jeff] was agitated. Defense counsel objected, asserting that the conversation between Ellison and Jeff had been recorded without their knowledge. The prosecutor responded that he was not asking to play the tape for the jury. Outside the jury's presence, the trial court commented that Ellison appeared hostile toward the prosecution and that therefore the prosecutor's line of questioning was highly probative of Ellison's credibility. This exchange followed: The Court: And of course, the tape will not be played in court, in open court, at this time unless the People ask that be done and after I hear it and determine if it is relevant. But I took that last question by [prosecutor] Mr. Foltz merely as an offer to refresh the witness's recollection outside the presence of the jury. [Defense counsel] Ms. Dell: The reason I misunderstood Mr. Foltz is I believe they played it for the witness about a half an hour ago out of the presence of the jury. Mr. Foltz: Excerpts, I believe she said. [Defense counsel] Mr. Bernstein: I would also indicate that under the Penal Code a tape recording that is not consensual is not admissible for any purpose, impeachment, refreshing recollection, it is illegally obtained unless there is some foundation that this was done by virtue of a court order, wire tap or anything of that sort. The Court: I don't want to sit here and argue the merits of Penal Code section 632. I am sure that's what you are referring to, Mr. Bernstein. But if you are going to make that objection, that hasn't been used yet, I will rule on it. Now, nowhere has it been offered into evidence. The tape recording of the conversation in which Ellison told her son Jeff that a defense investigator owed her favors was not introduced into evidence and was not again mentioned until defendant's new trial motion listed it as evidence that the prosecution had improperly withheld from the defense. Defendant now contends that the tape recording was material evidence favorable to the defense that the prosecution wrongfully withheld. We disagree. We are not persuaded that the information on the tape recording was in any way favorable to the defense. Defendant asks that we Mow People v. Shipp (1963) 59 Cal.2d 845, 850, 31 Cal.Rptr. 457, 382 P.2d 577, in which this court, in concluding that the defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecution's withholding of an investigator's report, did so based on an assumption that the unknown contents of the report would have assisted the defense. We see no reason to assume in this case that the contents of the tape recording would have benefited defendant. Here, defense counsel objected to having the jury hear the tape recording, and counsel did not mention the tape recording or its contents when cross-examining Ellison or later upon calling her as a defense witness. These actions by defense counsel strongly suggest that the tape recording of the conversation between Ellison and her son Jeff was not evidence favorable to the defense.