Yannacone v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 1963 No. Civ. 21094Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a criminal defendant is not entitled to a blanket discovery order for the entire investigative file of a private third party, especially when the request is speculative and lacks a showing of necessity.

Issues

Whether a criminal defendant may compel a private third party to produce its entire investigative file via a subpoena duces tecum prior to trial.
Whether the civil discovery act applies to criminal proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Even California’s liberal criminal discovery rules fail to encompass the relief here sought.”

“The civil discovery act (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016, et seq.) is not applicable to criminal proceedings”

“he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for... all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation”

DRAPER, P. J.

Petitioner is charged with misdemeanor manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. 3(b)). Upon denial of his request for pretrial discovery in the municipal court, he sought mandamus in the superior court. After hearing, alternative writ was discharged and peremptory writ denied. Petitioner appeals.

A truck driven by petitioner collided with a Southern Pacific train. Petitioner’s fellow employee, riding in the truck, was killed. This prosecution for manslaughter followed.

Petitioner alleges that: He and the heirs of the deceased fellow employee have filed civil actions against the railroad company; he is informed that Southern Pacific has investigated the accident; he believes that the interests of the

[74]

company are similar to those of the prosecution; he infers that the railroad would make available to the prosecution only information helpful to it; “therefore, to insure a fair trial defendant should have access to the total investigative materials as developed by the Southern Pacific Company.” He prays “issuance of a subpena duces tecum to the Southern Pacific Company, to appear at a special hearing prior to trial, and... produce their entire investigative file, reports, and statements covering the accident in question. ’ ’

Even California’s liberal criminal discovery rules fail to encompass the relief here sought. In a proper case, one charged with crime may, before trial, inspect: statements of his own in possession of the prosecution, whether signed, unsigned, or on recording tapes; real evidence or reports of state officers ’ examination thereof; and statements of persons expected to be prosecution witnesses at trial. He may compel disclosure of the names and addresses of eyewitnesses of an alleged crime. (Defense counsel, at oral argument, conceded that he has asked only the names and addresses of the engineer and a flagman, which have been furnished to him.) He may have the prosecution restrained from interfering with his counsel’s right to interview witnesses (see decisions reviewed in

People

Cooper,

53 Cal.2d 755, 769-770 [3 Cal.Rptr. 148, 349 P.2d 964]).

Yannacone v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief