In re M.C.
Filed 12/23/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re M.C., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B304097 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. YJ39207) (Los Angeles County) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.C., Defendant and Appellant.
In People v. Galan (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 6 (Galan), we upheld the denial of a motion to inspect the confidential personnel file of a police officer. There, and here, there was no “good cause” for discovery. Here, the reason is straightforward and surprisingly simple. It requires only common sense and practical wisdom, both of which were demonstrated by the experienced trial judge, Honorable Fumiko H. Wasserman. This officer’s “Pitchess jacket” had nothing to do with the search for truth. Appellant was apprehended a short time and distance away from the burglary. He was hiding in a cardboard box. We doubt that the officer has a penchant for fabricating arrests out of
a cardboard box. As we shall explain, his credibility has nothing to do with appellant’s guilt or innocence, or his theory of the case. M.C. was declared a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and returned to his home on probation after the trial court sustained a petition for first degree burglary with a person present (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 462, subd. (a) and felony vandalism § 594, subd. (a)). He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his Brady/Johnson motion (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady); People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696) for an in camera review and discovery of the arresting officer’s confidential personnel file. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On the morning of March 22, 2019, Eldwin Lum was at home and heard the doorbell ring and knocking at his front door. Lum watched a video surveillance feed of a woman at his front porch. The woman walked to a black Kia parked two houses way. Lum called 911 and continued to watch the Kia. Two men, wearing dark hoodies and pants, got out of the Kia and ran towards Lum’s house. One man wore red shoes and the other man wore blue shoes. Lum called 911 again when he heard the downstairs sliding glass door break. There were sounds of male voices, people walking on broken glass, and rummaging through the house. Lum heard the stairs creak and yelled “get out of my house. I got a gun.” Running halfway down the stairs, Lum fired his pistol and saw two men, one wearing blue shoes and the other with red shoes flee. They ran out the broken glass door. Sheriff’s units responded to the 911 call and searched the area. 1
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)