Davis v. Superior Court of Riverside County
1 Cal. App. 5th 881
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jim Dale Davis, serving life without parole for three first-degree murders, sought postconviction discovery under Penal Code § 1054.9 while litigating collateral relief.
- Davis asked for six categories of materials: police reports, the investigative “murder book,” names of suspects questioned, all fingerprints, all DNA collected, and all witness statements. He was indigent and objected to paying copying costs up front.
- The trial court held a hearing in 2012, directed informal resolution, and later issued a minute order (April 22, 2015) denying Davis’s § 1054.9 request without explanation. Prosecutor later produced some materials to a third-party Innocence Project contact; Davis disputed completeness.
- Davis petitioned this Court for a writ of mandate; the Court issued an order to show cause, appointed counsel, and reviewed the parties’ submissions. The People partially produced electronic materials but dispute remained over physical files and cost payment.
- The Court concluded Davis had demonstrated entitlement to at least some non-DNA documentary materials and remanded for the trial court to (1) attempt informal resolution, and (2) if necessary, exercise discretion to order production (excluding new DNA testing and physical evidence absent a showing of good cause).
- The Court held that § 1054.9 does not require prepayment of copying costs; costs may be borne or reimbursed by the defendant, and the trial court must fashion reasonable accommodations or a reimbursement plan rather than flatly deny discovery for inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to postconviction discovery under § 1054.9 | Davis: made good-faith attempts to get materials from trial counsel and reasonably believes requested documents exist | People: requests vague/overbroad; some items not available or require compliance with other statutes | Court: Davis satisfied threshold for many documentary items (police reports, murder book, suspects, witness statements); DNA and physical evidence require separate showings or § 1405 procedures |
| Access to physical evidence/fingerprints | Davis sought fingerprints and DNA as part of discovery | People: physical evidence/DNA governed by § 1054.9(c) and § 1405; DNA testing not available via § 1054.9 | Court: DNA testing unavailable under § 1054.9 (must use § 1405); fingerprints count as physical evidence requiring good-cause showing before production |
| Requirement to pay copying costs in advance | Davis: indigent and cannot be forced to prepay; equal protection concerns if indigent treated worse | People: statute reasonably places copying costs on requesting inmate to prevent abuse; Davis didn’t prove indigence | Court: § 1054.9(d) requires costs to be borne or reimbursed, not necessarily prepaid; trial court may order accommodations (e.g., view-only access, installment payments, deductions) and may fashion reimbursement plan |
| Mootness based on partial production to third party | People: production to Innocence Project contact rendered dispute moot | Davis: disputes completeness and locus of certain files; trial court should determine actual compliance | Court: Not moot; remand required so trial court can determine what remains discoverable and whether production was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Catlin v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2011) (defendant entitled to postconviction discovery upon showing unsuccessful efforts to obtain materials from trial counsel)
- Barnett v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 890 (Cal. 2010) (threshold belief in existence of materials suffices; courts may remand for appropriate discovery orders)
- In re Steele, 32 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. 2004) (categories defining what prosecution-held materials are discoverable postconviction)
- Schaffer v. Superior Court, 185 Cal.App.4th 1235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (district attorney must provide accommodations to view discoverable items if defense will not pay duplication fees)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (use of empirical data in addressing potential constitutional burdens)
- Arnett v. Dal Cielo, 14 Cal.4th 4 (Cal. 1996) (statutory interpretation principle to give meaning to every word)
- People v. Gentry, 28 Cal.App.4th 1374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (prison wages may be considered in assessing inmate’s ability to pay)
- Carlos v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.3d 131 (Cal. 1983) (canon to construe ambiguous statutes to avoid constitutional doubts)