Court Opinion

ID: 9764221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:15:24.556148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.881051
License: Public Domain

*907WERDEGAR, J., Dissenting.
The United States Constitution requires certain minimum procedural protections in criminal cases generally and capital cases in particular. The states, however, are “absolutely free” to provide defendants with greater protection. (Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 8 [131 L.Ed.2d 34, 115 S.Ct. 1185].) The prerogative to provide such protections lies in the first instance with our Legislature. In 2002, dissatisfied with this court’s refusal to permit postconviction discovery motions (People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1256-1257 [275 Cal.Rptr. 729, 800 P.2d 1159]), the Legislature directed courts to provide convicted defendants with any “materials ... to which [they] would have been entitled at [the] time of trial” (Pen. Code,1 § 1054.9, subd. (b), added by Stats. 2002, ch. 1105, § 1; see generally In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 536, 85 P.3d 444] (Steele)). The Legislature having thus spoken, it is not our place to burden the new statutory right with judicially created conditions that substantially diminish its value. Because this is the effect of today’s opinion, I dissent and invite the Legislature to reassert its prerogative in terms that cannot so easily be ignored.2
I. Threshold Burden
In Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th 682, we rejected the Attorney General’s contention that section 1054.9 was nothing more than a file reconstruction statute. The statute does not, we explained, “limit [postconviction] discovery to materials the defendant actually possessed to the exclusion of materials the defense should have possessed. If the Legislature had intended to limit the discovery to file reconstruction it could easily have said so.” (Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 693.) Today, however, the majority eviscerates our prior holding by imposing a daunting, often insurmountable threshold burden on defendants who seek discovery beyond mere file reconstruction. Specifically, the majority holds that defendants who seek materials the prosecutor should have, but did not, disclose must first show that specific undisclosed materials actually exist. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 894; see also id., at p. 899.) If the defendant cannot successfully divine the contents of the prosecutor’s files, the majority continues, courts should simply presume the People have satisfied their obligations and deny the motion without further inquiry. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 899, citing Evid. Code, § 664 [It is presumed that “official duty has been regularly performed.”].) This interpretation of the postconviction discovery statute (§ 1054.9), lacking any basis in the statute’s language, is wholly illegitimate.
*908The majority’s interpretation of the statute is also intolerably unfair to the defense. As another court has aptly observed, “[i]t is axiomatic that one cannot prove what was not turned over if one does not know what was not turned over. Likewise it is simply nonsensical to apply a presumption that a duty was regularly performed for purposes of barring a request for materials that would show a duty was not regularly performed.” (Curl v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 310, 324 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 320].) In any event, the presumption does not properly affect the People’s discovery obligations. In that context, “the ‘special role played by the American prosecutor in the search for truth in criminal trials’ ” compels an exception to the ordinary “ ‘presumfption] that public officials have properly discharged their official duties.’ ” (Banks v. Dretke (2004) 540 U.S. 668, 696 [157 L.Ed.2d 1166, 124 S.Ct. 1256].) “A rule thus declaring ‘prosecution may hide, defendant must seek,’ is not tenable in a system constitutionally bound to accord defendants due process.” (Ibid.)3
To hold that a defendant must prove specific undisclosed materials exist before requesting their production will inevitably have the pernicious effect of shielding both negligent and intentional failures to produce relevant evidence. This is not speculation. In the case before us, the prosecutor’s inadvertent failure to produce police reports that fell within the scope of a specific pretrial discovery order came to light only when defendant requested such materials in posttrial discovery. Under today’s holding, defendant’s request would have been denied at the outset because he had no way to prove the reports existed, and they would never have come to light.
Seeking to play down the newly created threshold burden, the majority suggests the record will occasionally give the defense a basis for proving that specific undisclosed materials do exist. For example, if a witness testifies about a particular report the defendant does not possess, or if a disclosed report cross-references an additional, undisclosed report, the defendant would presumably have sufficient evidence to justify a discovery request under section 1054.9. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 901.) I do not doubt that, in a few rare cases, random events may reveal that the prosecution has in fact failed to comply with its disclosure obligations. But the Legislature cannot reasonably be thought to have intended to condition an important statutory right on fortuities.
In any event, nothing in the language of the postconviction discovery statute supports the majority’s decision to impose a threshold burden of proof on the defense. Section 1054.9 provides simply that a defendant is entitled to *909“materials in the possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities to which the same defendant would have been entitled at [the] time of trial.” (Id., subd. (b), italics added.) The majority attempts to justify its newly created threshold burden as necessary to prevent speculative fishing expeditions by the defense. I agree that some of this defendant’s discovery requests probably do fit that description. But as fishing expeditions are not proper even before trial, the postconviction discovery statute does not authorize them, either. (E.g., Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359, 393 [51 Cal.Rptr.3d 637].) To reach this conclusion, we need not engage in the illegitimate practice of “add[ing] requirements to those already supplied by the Legislature.” (In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254, 265 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 95 P.3d 906].) I also agree that statutes should be interpreted to be efficient and workable (maj. opn., ante, at p. 903), and that to permit fishing expeditions is neither. But there is nothing inefficient or unworkable in requiring the prosecutor, in response to a proper request for materials to which the defense was entitled before trial (see §§ 1054.1, subds. (a)-(f), 1054.9, subd. (b)), to verify that the prosecution has already done what it was required to do and, if such is the case, to state unambiguously that no undisclosed materials exist. To rely instead on a generic evidentiary presumption that official duty has been performed (Evid. Code, § 664; see maj. opn., ante, at p. 899) renders section 1054.9 virtually unenforceable except as a file reconstruction statute, contrary to Legislative intent. (See Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th 682, 693.)
In its zeal to protect the People from the supposed burden of complying with their postconviction discovery obligations, the majority goes even farther than the People ask the court to go. At oral argument, the People contended that defendant’s request for interview notes prepared by the New York State Police should be denied because defendant is unable to show precisely what the New York agency did at the Butte County prosecutor’s request, even though correspondence between the two agencies shows New York enthusiastically provided witness-related assistance that Butte County described as “very helpful.” The People thus correctly anticipated, and proposed to apply, the majority’s holding imposing a threshold burden of proof on the defense. But later, in response to questioning from the bench, the People conceded “it might be appropriate” for the trial court to ask the prosecutor precisely what assistance New York provided because the prosecutor is “in a position to know,” and that to require the prosecutor to answer the question would not impose “a huge burden.” The majority’s failure to accept the People’s concession makes it impossible to accept today’s holding as necessary to make the postconviction discovery statute workable and efficient.
*910II. Out-of-state Law Enforcement Agencies
The majority also concludes defendant is not entitled to any witness interview notes prepared by out-of-state law enforcement agencies at the specific request of the Butte County prosecutor’s office. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 895, 903, 905.) Although the relevant facts have not yet been fully developed, defendant has shown that various out-of-state law enforcement agencies4 undertook, at the Butte County prosecutor’s specific request, to locate and interview witnesses who could offer testimony about defendant’s prior offenses in connection with the penalty phase trial.
The New York State Police, in particular, enthusiastically acted as the prosecutor’s agents in the penalty phase investigation. In January 1987, the Butte County District Attorney’s Office, in a letter to the New York State Police (NYSP), specifically requested New York’s “assistance in locating and re-interviewing the key witnesses in two [New York] investigations, with a view towards their ultimate testimony in our court in the penalty phase trial.” A commanding officer of the NYSP’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) responded by directing a troop commander to “assign a member of the BCI to conduct the appropriate investigation as requested” and to provide further, continuing assistance upon “any additional request of the [Butte County] District Attorney’s Office telephonically conveyed . . . .” The commanding officer emphasized to his subordinates that “[d]ue to the severity of the charges, the possible ultimate judgment and certain time considerations in the California Judicial System, the assigned member is to expedite this investigation as a priority matter. The result of this investigation and locating of the pertinent witnesses will be instrumental and extremely important to the prosecution’s position at the penalty trial.” (Italics added.) The New York agencies did as California asked. In a followup letter requesting further assistance with respect to a particular penalty phase witness, the Butte County prosecutor’s office noted that its efforts had “been much assisted by [a named] Investigator .... of your troop in East Greenbush” and that the New York State Police “have been very helpful in our efforts and we are very appreciative.”5
In view of these facts, candor would seem to require us to acknowledge that the New York State Police did act on behalf of the Butte County prosecutor in gathering information in connection with the penalty phase investigation. (See Steele, supra, 32 Cal.4th 682, 697.) Accordingly, any *911related interview notes generated by the New York agency would fall squarely within the rule that “the prosecution is responsible not only for evidence in its own files but also for information possessed by others acting on the government’s behalf that were gathered in connection with the investigation.” {Ibid.)
Seeking to avoid this conclusion, the majority observes, among other things, that out-of-state law enforcement agencies are not under the Butte County prosecutor’s control. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 904.) But defendant has shown that New York, at least,6 willingly provided assistance at the prosecutor’s request in connection with the penalty phase investigation. Presumably the out-of-state agencies cooperated out of comity, professional courtesy and a shared dedication to law enforcement, rather than out of any technical legal compulsion. But if the Butte County prosecutor can have, simply for the asking, the enthusiastic cooperation of out-of-state agencies in generating information to assist in presenting the case for the death penalty, the prosecutor should not be heard to claim that he lacks sufficient control to obtain the same information to assist petitioner in presenting the case against the death penalty. Such information is reasonably accessible to the prosecutor, and we have considered information to be in the prosecution’s possession for purposes of pretrial discovery if such "information is “ ‘reasonably accessible’ to the prosecution,” or “ ‘readily available’ to the prosecution and not accessible to the defense.” (In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122, 135 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 248, 851 P.2d 42], italics added.) Whatever information the defense is entitled to have before trial, it is entitled to have after trial, as well.7 (§ 1054.9, subd. (b).)
In this case, the record leaves no doubt that information from New York is reasonably available to the Butte County prosecutor. The People conceded as much at oral argument, and agreed that Butte County’s lack of control over an out-of-state agency is not determinative when “[t]he prosecutor actively engages another agency and asks them to ‘please, go out and develop this *912evidence that I need to put on my penalty phase.’ ” Here, too, in the service of its holding, the majority refuses to accept what is obvious to the People. For this reason as well, I dissent.
Rushing, J.,* concurred.
Petitioner’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 13, 2010. Kennard, J., did not participate therein. Werdegar, J., Moreno, J., and Rushing, J.,* were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code, except as noted.

I agree with the majority on one point only: A defendant seeking information through postjudgment discovery under section 1054.9 need not prove the information is material. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 894, 901.)

In Bracy v. Gramley (1997) 520 U.S. 899, 909 [138 L.Ed,2d 97, 117 S.Ct. 1793], an older case on which the majority relies (maj. opn., ante, at p. 900), the high court declined to rely on a presumption that officials had performed their duty as a reason to deny discovery.

Specifically, the New York State Police, the Miami-Dade Police Department (Florida), the Miami-Dade Office of the State Attorney (Florida), and the Calgary Police Service (Alberta, Canada).

As the majority notes (maj. opn., ante, at p. 903), we granted defendant’s motion to consider this documentary evidence.

The majority fails entirely to mention the nature and scope of the assistance provided by law enforcement officers in Miami-Dade County and Calgary. Yet defendant asserted in his motion for postconviction discovery that officers in both locations interviewed witnesses at the Butte County prosecutor’s request, and the People do not challenge the accuracy of defendant’s assertions.

The majority states that “we need not decide definitively whether the out-of-state agencies would have been considered part of the prosecution team under pretrial discovery rules” because “[sjection 1054.9 is a posttrial discovery provision.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 906.) I find this statement mysterious and, thus, potentially mischievous, because the statutory right to postconviction discovery expressly extends to materials “to which the . . . defendant would have been entitled at [the] time of trial.” (§ 1054.9, subd. (b).)

Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.