Court Opinion

ID: 9535140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:45:55.450848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:10.772253
License: Public Domain

POWELL, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in this case only by reason of the exceptional facts stated in the opinion, making this case an exception to the rule stated in Lemon v. Supreme Court, 245 N.Y. 24, 156 N.E. 84, 52 A.L.R. 200, to the effect that documents in possession of *616the prosecution which are in themselves inadmissible in evidence, are not subject to inspection by the defendant. See also 11 A.L.R.2d 636, and 17 Am.Jur., § 32, page 36.
In this case as a practical matter it is difficult to understand why the State would hesitate, in view of the peculiar circumstances, in furnishing the defendant with a copy of the F. B. I. statement of the results of the chemical analysis of the organic matter taken from the fender of the defendant’s automobile. After all, truth is all that the State seeks. The facts agreed upon before this court would indicate that the defendant at the time of the accident was unaware and still is unaware whether his car actually struck the child and brought about the fatality.
The vital matter here for solution, if defendant’s automobile was in fact the death car, would be the determination of whether or not the death came about by an unavoidable accident. Nothing was suggested at oral argument that would indicate otherwise, though by no means was it necessary to divulge all the evidence that would be produced at trial. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts brought out at the hearing before this court and recited in the opinion of the court, compel me to agree to an exception to the general rule.
The recent case of Walker v. Supreme Court, Cal.App.1957, 317 P.2d 130, is a case in point with the within case, and where the peculiar facts forced an exception to the general rule.