People v. Gutierrez
214 Cal. App. 4th 343
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Complaint filed May 30, 2002 charging Gutierrez with two counts of lewd acts with a child under 14; arrest occurred May 27, 2011.
- During the July 2011 preliminary hearing, JD1 and JD2 testified about alleged prior acts at Gutierrez's home; JD1 had prior unfounded molestation accusations from 1996 and 1999 uncovered later.
- Defense moved to dismiss alleging Brady nondisclosure of the 1996 and 1999 police reports; prosecution offered no written opposition but opposed orally.
- Trial court found a Brady violation and concluded it was reasonably probable the outcome would have differed at the preliminary hearing if the exculpatory evidence were disclosed, leading to dismissal of the charges.
- People urged that Proposition 115 abrogated Stanton/Currie/Merrill and eliminated Brady obligations at preliminary hearings; Izazaga and Jenkins cited to preserve Brady duties; court rejected these arguments.
- Disposition: the order dismissing the charges was affirmed, upholding Brady applicability at the preliminary hearing; the People’s arguments were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady applies at a preliminary hearing post-Proposition 115 | People contend Stanton was abrogated by Prop. 115; Brady not required pretrial | Gutierrez argues Brady duties survive Prop. 115 and apply to preliminaries | Brady applies at preliminary hearings despite Prop. 115 |
| Whether Proposition 115 abrogates Stanton, Currie, Merrill | People claim Prop. 115 legislatively overruled earlier Bradi precedents | Gutierrez relies on Izazaga supporting Brady despite Prop. 115 | Prop. 115 did not abrogate Brady precedents |
| Whether Brady is self-executing and independent of statutory discovery rules | Discovery statutes cannot override Brady rights | Prosecution need not disclose under statutorily defined discovery if not required | Brady is self-executing and disclosure required irrespective of discovery statutes |
| Role of Section 866 in preliminary hearings and discovery limits | Section 866 limits discovery, opposing Brady duty | Brady duties persist; 866 does not bar exculpatory disclosures | Brady disclosures allowed despite § 866 limitations |
| Impact of Williams on grand jury vs. preliminary hearing rights | Williams limits grand jury rights; informs but does not deny prelim Brady | Williams supports no Brady at prelims | Williams does not negate preliminary Brady rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanton v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.3d 265 (Cal. App. 1987) (Brady duty extends to preliminary hearings)
- Currie v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.3d 83 (Cal. App. 1991) (Impeachment impeachment evidence not always material at prelims)
- Merrill v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 1586 (Cal. App. 1994) (Requires materiality and impact on probable cause at prelims)
- Izazaga v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 356 (Cal. 1991) (Prop. 115 cannot limit Brady rights; Brady self-executing)
- People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) ( Brady applies; delay cured by later challenge without prejudice)
- Jones v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. App. 2004) (Distinguishes defense obligations; not controlling for prosecution’s Brady duty)
- In re Sassounian, 9 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 1995) (Brady materiality and prejudice standards for due process)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1992) (Grand jury protections differ from preliminary hearings)
- People v. Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873 (Cal. 1998) (Fair trial concept referenced in Brady contexts)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002) (Fair trial considerations in disclosure)