Bradshaw v. Superior Court

2 Cal.3d 332 (1970) 466 P.2d 680 85 Cal. Rptr. 136 EDWARD HENRY BRADSHAW, JR., et al., Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

Docket No. L.A. 29718. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

April 1, 1970. COUNSEL

Harelson, Enright, Levitt & Knutson, William B. Enright, Thomas & Johns, Kenneth A. Johns, Marinos, Augustine & Delafield and Robert E. Madruga for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

James Don Keller, District Attorney, and Richard H. Bein, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.

[333] MEMORANDUM CASE

OPINION

BURKE, J.

This case, and two companion cases,[1] raise questions regarding discovery by the prosecution in a criminal case. Petitioners herein, who are defendants in a pending murder case, seek to enjoin that portion of a discovery order which requires them "within twenty-four (24) hours of expected use ... to furnish a statement of the expected testimony of each witness the defendants, and each of them, intend to call excluding, however, the defendants themselves. Such statement shall be descriptive in nature, describing the type of testimony expected from the witness or witnesses."[2]

In Prudhomme v. Superior Court, supra, ante, page 320, we granted prohibition to annul a similar discovery order on the ground that the order was beyond the trial court's jurisdiction, and therefore void, in that it did not clearly appear from the order or from the record below that disclosure of the information demanded therein could not possibly incriminate defendant. Prudhomme is fully dispositive of the instant case.[3]

Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondent court from enforcing its discovery order herein.