People v. Matos

California Court of Appeal May 9, 1979 No. Crim. 32619Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case with directions to grant the defendant's motion for discovery of the specific citizen complaints against the officers, as the initial discovery provided had proven inadequate for the defense.

Issues

Whether the in camera hearing conducted without the defendant or his counsel present was unconstitutional.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant further discovery of citizen complaints after the initial discovery proved inadequate.
Whether the trial court's findings on the counts were inconsistent and required dismissal.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“counsel for the defendant made it clear that he was seeking to obtain the complaints themselves since, in the words of Kelvin L., the discovery already granted had “proved inadequate.””

“The judgment is reversed with directions to grant a motion by defendant for discovery of the complaints made against Officers Smailing and Yarbrough”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.

Defendant was charged with: (count I) assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, in violation of subdivision (b) of section 245 of the Penal Code; (count II) battery on a police officer, in violation of sections 242 and 243 of the Penal Code; and (count III) battery on a police officer in violation of sections 242 and 243 of the Penal

[865]

Code. After a trial by the court, trial by jury being duly waived, he was found not guilty on counts I and II, but guilty on count III. He was granted probation; he has appealed; we reverse.

Counts I and II involved an altercation between defendant and Officer Smalling; count III involved an altercation between defendant and Officer Smalling’s partner, Officer Yarbrough. Because of the nature of the issues raised on this appeal, it is unnecessary to set forth the facts in detail. The case for the People was that defendant, angered at investigative tactics of the officers, had attacked them; the defense was that the assault was by the officers, using excessive force, and that he had merely resisted that excessive force.

To support that defense, defendant moved for discovery, under the authority of

Pitchess v. Superior Court

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305], of the officers’ records. So far as is here material, that motion was in the following terms:

“The personnel or administrative records of officers R. Yarbrough (Serial No. 16396) and B. Smalling (Serial No. 16309) of the Los Angeles Police Department, concerning any complaints, allegations or charges concerning the use of force, excessive force, charges of battery, or other allegations of the use of violence pertaining to the conduct of each officer, whether on or off duty, including but not limited to, reports, police reports, complaint reports, records of hearings pertaining thereto, and station records concerning similar information, during the period of time that each of the officers has been employed by the Los Angeles Police Department.

“The names and addresses of any persons who have made claims, allegations and charges against either of the officers named in the previous paragraph concerning allegations of false arrest, the use of excessive force, or battery, during the period of time that each of the officers has been a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, including reports made on the station level, and those made to the internal affairs division of the Los Angeles Police Department.

People v. Matos

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

AI Brief