CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Criminal Discovery
......Reciprocal Crim. Discovery Cases
46 Cards On This Topic:

PC §1054 does not require one codefendant to disclose evidence to another codefendant.

Trial ct. properly denied D's discovery request for all records documenting DNA contamination as his DNA could not have contaminated V's samples the company had already tested and he could y have retested the evidence himself; no Brady violation.

PC 1054.3(b)(1) does not extend to D who pleads NGI and proposes to call mental health expert on sanity; 1054.3(b)(1) authorized trial court to order D examined by DA-retained mental health expert.

Trial court may not deny as untimely a PC 1054.9 motion for postconviction discovery.

DA's request that D submit to a psych. exam. by DA's experts, if she produced expert testimony about her mental condition, was precluded by discovery statutes under Verdin; court could still have ordered exams under EC 730.

Harmless error to instruct per 1996 version of CALJIC 2.28 where no evidence tardy disclosure of expert's testimony prejudiced DA's case, DA declined continuance and vigorously cross-examined expert.

Ds seeking discovery beyond what DA provided before trial must show reasonable basis to believe specific requested materials actually exist but do not have to show Brady materiality.

PC 1054.9 does not amend Prop. 115, which governs only pretrial discovery and does not prohibit postconviction discovery of the kind that PC 1054.9 provides.

Not reasonably possible jury would have returned penalty verdict of LWOP rather than death if trial court had not allowed DA psychiatrist to testify re D's refusal to cooperate with court-ordered psychiatric exam.

D's untimely disclosure of family members as alibi Ws month after trial began justified court's giving modified jury instruction on PC 1054.7 discovery violation.

D's work product claim failed under restricted definition of PC 1054.6.

Trial court order granting DA request to have DA expert conduct mental exam of D is not authorized by crim discovery statutes nor mandated by U.S. Const.

No violation of Brady or reciprocal crim. discovery statutes re 1989 letter from D's sister to DA, not received by defense until 1993 trial, where defense could have discovered letter by looking through DA's files as invited.

Within trial court’s discretion to order use of D’s witness statement postponed pending resolution of alleged discovery rule violation.

Discovery provisions coexist with PC 190.3 notice provision-fact that failure to provide pretrial notice of rebuttal evidence does not preclude its admission under section 190.3 does not make it exempt from ordinary rules of discovery.

Court did not threaten defense counsel for failing to inform DA about witness statements to investigator—counsel withdrew his question to witness for strategic purposes, not because of threats by judge.

D failed to show how DA violated PC 1054.1's discovery obligations by not disclosing information on a witness the defense intended to present.

Though police murder book, given to defense, did not say why O released certain money to V, that one omission wasn't failure to disclose or suppression under statutory or constitutional standards.

Petitioner entitled to Pen. Code §1054.9 discovery of materials that were in DA's possession, if any.

As expert impeachment info outside scope of reciprocal discovery statute, and record did not show undisclosed evidence discoverable under statute, DA committed no discovery violation.

Reciprocal discovery provisions of Pen. Code §1054 upheld.

Whether necessary to present evidence on NGI or capacity, DA was entitled to a fair opportunity to rebut any mental-state evidence per PC 1054.3(b)(1).

Post-judgment order sought by DA that O's confidential file did not contain Brady material did not affect D's substantial rights; convicted D has no right to post-judg. discovery order based on Brady alone, independent of PC §1054.9.

Criminal discovery statutes do not bar production of corporate records from corporate Ds, a category of nontestimonial evidence that PC 1054.4 and established precedent permit the DA to obtain.

Trial ct. exceeded its jurisdiction under PC 1054.5(c) by excluding DA's Ws, dog scent and gunshot residue evidence as a sanction for DA's failure to provide discovery — court was required to exhaust less drastic sanctions first.

There is no statutory requirement that D be represented by an attorney at time he files PC 1054.9 motion for discovery materials he was unable to obtain from trial counsel.

Trial court's power to impose partial dismissal as discovery sanction is subject to same limitation as its power to dismiss entire charge as sanction: not unless dismissal ••required•• by Constitution. Here, it was not.

PC 1054.9 does not require D to show his requested discovery materials actually exist and are in possession of DA and/or law enforcement, or that he has a good faith basis to believe they are.

D's request for writ of habeas corpus relief re discovery requests failed where he did not show he would have been entitled to the materials he requested at time of trial under PC §1054.9.

DA immediately turned over its computer expert's report and opinion supporting forgery to D, thus satisfying PC 1054.7, and nothing suggested DA learned of its expert's opinion based on the laptop evidence prior to receiving written report.

To obtain PC 1054.9 post-conviction discovery, person sentenced to death or life w/out possibility of parole is not required to make a showing that DA failed to turn over discovery materials at trial.

Where counsel failed to disclose statements of expert made in connection with case per express language of PC 1054.3, trial court properly concluded this type of gamesmanship was a discovery violation.

No abuse of discretion where D's surrebuttal was precluded (1) as a sanction for violating discovery rules and, implicitly, (2) as unduly time consuming and potentially prejudicial under EC 352.

Failure of officers to preserve and turn over the raw interview notes used to prepare reports did not violate reciprocal discovery provisions of Prop. 115.

Trial court erred in prohibiting defense W from testifying b/c she was not on witness list and in instructing jury with CALJIC No. 2.28 re pretrial discovery procedural violations.

PC 1054.3 requires D's atty to disclose to DA all relevant statements made by persons, other than D, whom defense intends to call at trial, incl. unrecorded oral statements made in oral report by 3d party and those made directly to counsel.

Reciprocal discovery provisions in Prop 115 do not apply to probation revocation hearing, and thus probationer has no obligation to provide discovery to DA therein.

D may compel DA to produce materials generated or maintained by CDC re its crim. investigation, if within list of discoverable items of Pen. Code §1054.1 (a)-(f).

DA violated Prop 115 statutory discovery provisions by withholding evidence of V's conduct in committing petty thefts, which was admissible for impeachment.

Raw written W interview notes, recording W's stmt rather than attorney's work product opinions or conclusions about stmt, are subject to discovery as "statements" under Pen. Code §1054.3.

D's responses to standardized psychological tests relied upon in expert's report are discoverable per PC §1054.3.

Refusing to allow D's witness to testify as sanction for nondisclosure during discovery is inappropriate absent willfulness or significant prejudice.

PC 1054.3, requiring disclosure of witnesses' names and statements, must be read together with PC 1054.6, which excludes materials subject to express statutory privilege.

DA's constitutional duty to disclose all substantial material evidence favorable to accused includes that which reflects on material witness' credibility.

Prop. 115 discovery provisions do not violate due process clause as they must be interpreted reciprocally.

Cases discussing reciprocal criminal discovery.