Court Opinion

ID: 9764220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:15:24.551999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.878404
License: Public Domain

MORENO, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with part II.A. of the majority opinion that defendants seeking postconviction discovery under Penal Code section 1054.9 must show a reasonable basis to believe that those items actually exist, but do not have to show further that those items are material within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194]. But I disagree with part II.B. of the majority opinion that section 1054.9 does not permit discovery of materials in the possession of out-of-state law enforcement agencies under the circumstances of this case.
I agree with part II. of Justice Werdegar’s dissent, post, that, at the least, petitioner is entitled to discover information in the possession of the New York State Police that relates to the information that agency gathered for the prosecution in this case. I dissent from the majority’s contrary holding.