Skip to content
Name: Lunsted v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 138
Case #: E081770
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/01/2024

Trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the Facebook factors when ruling on defendant’s motion to quash the People’s subpoena duces tecum seeking his c-file. In preparation for an upcoming Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the prosecution issued a subpoena duces tecum to CDCR seeking Lunsted’s “c-file” in its entirety. Lunsted moved to quash, arguing the subpoena was overbroad and sought privileged and immaterial medical and mental health records. The trial court concluded that the c-file was likely to contain information “germane to the resentencing procedures” and denied the motion. In his writ petition in the Court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Madrigal (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 219
Case #: H046577
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/06/2023

Retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 1437 entitled defendant to reversal of first degree murder conviction, where the jury was not instructed on the new elements of felony-murder. Madrigal was among a group of four or five men who got out of a van and attacked and robbed a man on a sidewalk. One of the attackers stabbed the victim, who died soon after. The court instructed the jury on three theories of first degree murder, including felony murder in the commission of a robbery. The prosecutor conceded in closing there was no reliable evidence of who stabbed the victim.…

View Full Summary
Name: Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court
Case #: S243855
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/26/2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (unanimous decision).

A law enforcement agency's "Brady list" is confidential to the extent that officers are included on the list based on information obtained from confidential personnel records. In 2016, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the Department) informed roughly 300 deputy sheriffs in the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (the Association) that their names may be provided to prosecutorial agencies on a "Brady list" because a review of their personnel records had identified potential exculpatory or impeachment information. The Association obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the Department from disclosing the identity…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bipialaka
Case #: B285656
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 04/17/2019

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions for assault with a deadly weapon where he accelerated his vehicle towards another occupied car with the intent to frighten its occupants. After ingesting methamphetamine and alcohol, defendant led police on a car chase during which he targeted another car in an intersection, running the red light and accelerating as though intending to hit the other vehicle. The other driver braked, defendant swerved, and no collision occurred. He maintained on appeal that because he only intended to "freak out" the passengers in the other car, his conviction for using his car to commit an assault…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Washington
Case #: C084503
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/15/2019

Indigent defendant with retained counsel was not entitled to have the county pay for discovery from the prosecution because a third party agreed to pay for expenses in a retainer agreement with counsel. A jury convicted Washington of multiple felonies and he was sentenced to prison. Among other grounds on appeal, Washington argued that, because he was indigent, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for payment of costs for copying discovery. The trial court denied the motion because Washington's mother had retained an attorney for Washington and agreed to pay routine costs and expenses in the…

View Full Summary
Name: Satele v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Case #: S248492
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/18/2019

The good cause requirement for discovery in habeas corpus proceedings set forth in Penal Code section 1054.9 applies only to physical evidence in possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities, not to evidence held by the court. Satele was sentenced to death for two first degree murders. Following his direct appeal, he asked the trial court to release ballistics evidence for expert testing for use in preparing a habeas petition. The items were trial exhibits held by the court clerk. The court denied the request under section 1054.9, which governs discovery in habeas proceedings involving certain judgments, because Satele…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Alvarez
Case #: A152349
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/12/2019

An NGI defendant confined in a state mental hospital may not issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel the hospital and hospital police to produce documents when there is no underlying active proceeding, motion, or petition. In 2008, Alvarez pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to assault with a firearm and was committed to a state hospital. His case thereafter remained largely inactive. In 2017, Alvarez's attorney issued subpoenas under his 2008 criminal case number, seeking various documents from the hospital and the hospital police related to policies, procedures, and incidents, including an incident that led to Alvarez's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jimenez
Case #: D073313
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/21/2019

Defendant's motion for new trial was properly denied because a police report used by the prosecution at sentencing, implicating defendant in an unrelated shooting, was not Brady material and there was not a reasonable probability of a different result on retrial. Jimenez led officers on a high-speed chase with two children in the car. At one point, he drove straight toward a marked patrol vehicle, causing the officers to swerve at the last moment to avoid collision. A jury convicted Jimenez of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, two counts of felony child abuse, and evading a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Landers
Case #: A145037
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 01/14/2019

Trial court erred by imposing sanctions order on defense counsel when he had no obligation to turn over discovery for a codefendant's witness he did not intend to call at trial. The trial court imposed a $950 sanction on a deputy public defender (PD), who represented Landers in a two-defendant gang murder trial, for violating a reciprocal discovery order. Following trial, the prosecution filed a motion seeking a contempt finding because the PD did not turn over multiple statements from a witness called by Landers' codefendant. The PD argued the sanctions order was improper because he never intended to call…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Dominguez)
Case #: D073943
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/17/2018

Private company that provided DNA testing program is not part of the "prosecution team" and cannot be compelled to disclose information regarding the program which is solely in the company's possession. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. The evidence in the case included swabs which contained DNA from multiple contributors. The DNA evidence was analyzed using a program created by the Environmental Research Lab (ESR). In discovery, the defense sought information from the prosecution about ESR's program, including its source code, software, manual, and internal testing. The trial court compelled the discovery. The prosecution sought a writ of…

View Full Summary