Caldwell v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 1976 No. Civ. 37927Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that criminal defendants are entitled to discovery of police personnel records regarding an officer's propensity for violence when asserting self-defense, provided the request is identified with reasonable particularity. A personal showing of knowledge by the defendant is not required to avoid infringing upon the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Issues

Whether a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of police records concerning an officer's propensity for violence to support a claim of self-defense.
Whether a declaration in support of a subpoena duces tecum must be based on personal knowledge to satisfy the requirements for discovery.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court should have granted discovery subject to the right of the public agency to assert privilege under Evidence Code section 1040.”

“Even though the defense has not been able to point to specific prior acts of violence, the official records desired to be examined were identified with reasonable particularity and the pertinence to the defense of the requested information was demonstrated.”

Opinion

THE COURT.

Dorothy Lee Caldwell and Ronnie Caldwell appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to compel respondent

[379]

municipal court to grant discovery in a pending misdemeanor case in which appellants are defendants.

The charges against appellants are battery upon Officer Lance House of the Oakland Police Department (Pen. Code, § 243) and obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty (Pen. Code, § 148). A deputy public defender filed in the municipal court a declaration to obtain a 'subpoena duces tecum directed to the chief of police to compel production of:

“(I) Copies of all reports and records of complaints alleging the use of excessive force, aggressive conduct and/or violence in arrests made by Officers W. J. Gillespie and J. House, in the course of their employment by the Oakland Police Department.

“(2) Verbatim copies of all investigative reports made as a result of complaints alleging excessive use of force, violence by aforesaid Officers Gillespie and House in the course of their employment by the Oakland Police Department.

“(3) Names and addresses of all persons who have complained to the Oakland Police Department of excessive use of force, aggressive conduct and/or violence by Officers Gillespie and House committed during the course of their employment as officers;

“(4) Verbatim copies of all records, reports, reports of investigations and all other writings pertaining to the use of aggressive conduct, violence and/or excessive force committed by said officers contained in their personnel files;

“(5) Verbatim copies of all records, reports, reports of investigations and all other writings pertaining to the use of aggressive conduct, excessive force and/or violence committed by said officers in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Affairs.”

In the declaration it was stated on information and belief that the charges against appellants arose out of an incident in which Officers Gillespie and House used “excessive force, aggressive conduct and violence.” Declarant stated that he “believed”:

Caldwell v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief