Jalilie v. Superior Court

Opinion

KING, J.

In this case we hold that a declaration of defendant's counsel submitted on information and belief, if it demonstrates that information from a police officer’s personnel records will facilitate the ascertainment of facts and a fair trial, is sufficient to support a discovery motion under Evidence Code section 1043.

Petitioner Fuad Jalilie is currently charged with two felony offenses in respondent superior court. Under Evidence Code section 1043 and

Pitchess

v.

Superior Court

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305], Jalilie filed a motion to discover the disciplinary records and personnel files of the officers involved in his arrest. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the supporting declaration of counsel was made on information and belief rather than personal knowledge. Jalilie argues the procedural denial was erroneous and seeks a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to hear the motion on its merits. Having stayed the trial court proceedings and obtained opposition from the Attorney General, we conclude Jalilie’s position is sound and issue the requested writ.

Evidence Code section 1043 permits a criminal defendant to discover the personnel records of police officers, on motion accompanied by affidavits “showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth

[489]

the materiahty thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) The discovery is designed to “facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.”

(Pitchess

v.

Superior Court, supra,

11 Cal.3d at p. 536.) “The requisite showing may be satisfied by general allegations which establish some cause for discovery other than ‘a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People ....’”