Cordry v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA CTY.

California Court of Appeal Jun 11, 1958 No. Civ. 18244Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A criminal defendant is entitled to a writ of mandate compelling the prosecution to allow inspection of written statements made by the defendant to law enforcement when the defendant cannot recall the contents of those statements.

Issues

Whether a criminal defendant has a right to inspect written statements made to law enforcement when the defendant cannot recall their contents.
Whether the prosecution's failure to deny the defendant's lack of memory regarding the statements necessitates an order for inspection under the rule of Powell v. Superior Court.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the essential fact—lack of memory of the contents of the statements—is not denied in the ease at bar. It follows that the rule of Powell governs.”

“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, requiring respondent court to set aside its order denying inspection and to issue an order for inspection of the written records of all statements by petitioner”

DRAPER, J.

Petitioner is charged with murder. Shortly after he surrendered himself to the Palo Alto Police Department, he made statements to law enforcement officers. He alleges, on information and belief, that these statements were reduced to writing and are in the possession of the district attorney. These allegations are not denied. It is not con

[268]

tended that petitioner signed any statement. Petitioner applied to respondent court for leave to inspect these statements. His affidavit alleges that ‘11 cannot recall the contents of said statement or statements,” cannot “relate to my attorneys” the contents thereof, and need them “to refresh my recollection of their contents. ’ ’ Counteraffidavits of a captain of detectives and of the administrative assistant to the district attorney admit the taking of statements. They allege that when petitioner made his statements 11 his recollection seemed very clear as to all of the events involved in said crime.” Both allege that petitioner’s attorney has never stated that petitioner had any trouble recalling “the facts ... of the crime,” and the representative of the district attorney also alleges that defense counsel has never stated that his client “did not remember . . . the contents of the statement.”

This case is governed by the rule of

Powell

Superior Court,

48 Cal.2d 704 [312 P.2d 698], but the prosecution seeks to distinguish that decision upon two grounds.

First, it is argued that

Powell

applies only where a defendant lacks memory of the facts about which he made his statements, as distinguished from the contents and language of the statements. But in

Powell,

defendant alleged that he could neither recall nor relate to his attorney “the things contained” in the statements. Clearly the test there applied concerned defendant’s recollection of the contents of his statements, rather than his memory of the facts to which the statements were addressed. In the case at bar, the prosecution has asserted only that defendant’s attorney has not complained that his client cannot remember the facts or the contents of his statements. Thus no fact issue was raised as to the determinative issue, and, as in

Cordry v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA CTY.

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief