Error and/or relief:
The trial court should have granted the defendant’s Pitchess motion and conducted an in camera review of the officers’ personnel records.
First Holding:
A movant under the Pitchess statutes must show, among other things, good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought. A showing of good cause is measured by relatively relaxed standards that serve to insure the production for trial court review of all potentially relevant documents.
This good cause requirement has two components. First, the movant must set forth the materiality of the information sought to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation. The function of this requirement is to exclude requests for officer information that are irrelevant to the pending charges. Accordingly, a defendant seeking Pitchess discovery must establish not only a logical link between the defense proposed and the pending charge, but also articulate how the discovery being sought would support such a defense or how it would impeach the officer’s version of events.
If the movant shows that the request is relevant to the pending charges, and explains how, the materiality requirement will be met. If information is material within the meaning of Brady, it is necessarily material to the subject matter involved in a criminal prosecution.
Authority:
EVID 1043
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 179
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 28, 41-42
Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1021
Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83
Second Holding:
Second, the good cause requirement obliges the movant to articulate a reasonable belief that the agency has the type of information sought. This belief may be based on a rational inference. What the defendant must present is a specific factual scenario of officer misconduct that is plausible when read in light of the pertinent documents. The information sought must be described with some specificity to ensure that the defendant’s request is not so broad as to garner all information that has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime but is limited to instances of officer misconduct related to the misconduct asserted by the defendant. This specificity requirement excludes requests for officer information that are irrelevant to the pending charges.
Authority:
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 28, 42
Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1021, 1025
Third Holding:
If the trial court finds good cause for the motion, the court must examine the requested materials in camera to determine whether they should be disclosed to the defendant and whether certain specified categories of information must be withheld.
Authority:
City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83
Fourth Holding:
We review a trial court’s denial of a Pitchess motion for an abuse of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 311
Fifth Holding:
By parsing the defendant’s claims as alleging a conspiracy among the several correctional officers, rather than focusing on the individual involvement of each officer and whether the defendant presented a plausible factual scenario in which, for example, one of the officers planted the contraband and/or falsified his report, the trial court abused its discretion as its ruling falls outside the bounds of reason.
Authority:
People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 850
Sixth Holding:
We find that the defendant’s Pitchess motion presented a specific factual scenario establishing a plausible factual foundation for his allegations.
Authority:
City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147
Seventh Holding:
A showing of good cause is measured by relatively relaxed standards that serve to insure the production for trial court review of all potentially relevant documents. Further, the defendant need not point to any corroboration for the defendant’s account, and is also not required to present a credible or believable factual account of, or a motive for, police misconduct.
Rather, all that is required is the presentation of a scenario that might or could have occurred. Such a scenario is plausible because it presents an assertion of specific police misconduct that is both internally consistent and supports the defense proposed to the charges. Depending on the circumstances of the case, a sufficient factual allegation in a Pitchess motion may consist of a denial of the facts asserted in the police report.
Considering the relatively relaxed standards which should be applied by the trial court to assess whether such a factual scenario was plausible, the defendant clearly made such a showing here.
Authority:
People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 179
Uybungco v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1049
Eighth Holding:
Where the trial court has erroneously rejected a showing of good cause for Pitchess discovery and has not reviewed the requested records in camera, the proper remedy is not outright reversal, but a conditional reversal with directions to review the requested documents in chambers on remand.
Following remand, after reviewing the confidential materials in chambers, the trial court may determine that the requested personnel records contain no relevant information and reinstate the judgment.
It is also possible for the trial court to determine on remand that relevant information exists and should be disclosed. In that event, that the trial court must order disclosure, allow the defendant an opportunity to demonstrate prejudice, and order a new trial if there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had the information been disclosed.
Authority:
People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 180-181
Ninth Holding:
We find that the defendant, by failing to object when they were imposed, has forfeited his argument challenging the fines, fees, and assessments on appeal. In general, a defendant who fails to object to the imposition of fines, fees, and assessments at sentencing forfeits the right to challenge those fines, fees, and assessments on appeal.
This general rule applies when the relevant statute includes an ability to pay component, including when the defendant makes a constitutional argument. Given that the defendant is in the best position to know whether he has the ability to pay, it is incumbent on him to object to the fine and demonstrate why it should not be imposed. Ability to pay is a factual determination that is properly raised and determined first in the trial court.
We recognize however, there is a possibility the defendant demonstrates he is entitled to a new trial based on the outcome of the Pitchess proceedings below. In that event, and assuming he is again convicted following that new trial, he may address any applicable fines and fees that may be imposed at sentencing.
Authority:
People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 624
People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862
People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856-858
People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729
People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1154
People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 597