50 Cal.App.5th 257
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- On Jan. 18, 2013 Michael Hughes struck a PT Cruiser that was making a left turn; all three passengers in the PT Cruiser later died. Hughes survived.\
- Post‑accident testing showed Hughes’s BAC was 0.13% when blood was drawn about two hours after the crash; Hughes had a prior DUI and had been warned he could face murder charges if he drove drunk again and killed someone.\
- The Colton Police report and the CHP MAIT reconstruction initially identified the victim’s failure to yield as the primary cause; MAIT’s written analysis concluded Hughes’s pre‑brake speed was about 63.4 mph and impact speed about 55 mph and did not attribute causation to impairment.\
- At trial the MAIT investigator (Officer Finn) testified consistent with the MAIT report, undermining the prosecution’s causation theory.\
- The MAIT team leader (Sergeant Berns) then testified unexpectedly with new calculations and diagrams—prepared shortly before trial and not previously disclosed—opining Hughes’s speed and intoxication were substantial (but‑for) causes and that a sober driver at 55 mph would have avoided the crash. Defense counsel objected, requested a mistrial, and argued untimely discovery prevented adequate expert preparation.\
- The trial court found a discovery violation but denied a mistrial, gave a late‑disclosure instruction, allowed recall, and the jury convicted Hughes of three counts of second‑degree murder; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the denial of mistrial was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s failure to disclose Berns’s notes/diagrams and new opinions before Berns testified violated statutory discovery and required a mistrial | The late disclosure was inadvertent/limited (a few hours), not prosecutorial misconduct, and was curable by lesser remedies (instruction; recall) | The undisclosed expert notes/diagrams were discoverable under §1054.1(f); surprise testimony on the critical causation issue deprived Hughes of the opportunity to obtain expert rebuttal and was incurable prejudice | Discovery violation occurred; trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial because lesser remedies did not cure prejudice; convictions reversed |
| Whether lesser remedies (instruction, recall) sufficed to cure prejudice from the surprise expert testimony | A cautionary instruction and potential recall would remedy prejudice without a mistrial | Those remedies did not provide time to consult rebuttal experts or test Berns’s technical calculations; allowing the testimony to stand left Berns’s causation opinion uncontradicted | Court held the remedies were insufficient given the technical, outcome‑determinative nature of the surprise evidence; mistrial was the only adequate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (raw witness notes and unedited statements are discoverable)\
- People v. Ayala, 23 Cal.4th 225 (Cal. 2000) (trial court may impose a wide range of sanctions for discovery violations)\
- People v. Lamb, 136 Cal.App.4th 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (expert notes and intermediate calculations in accident reconstructions are subject to disclosure)\
- Zellerino v. Brown, 235 Cal.App.3d 1097 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (greater need for pretrial discovery for expert testimony in technical/scientific fields)\
- People v. Haskett, 30 Cal.3d 841 (Cal. 1982) (mistrial appropriate when prejudice is incurable by admonition or instruction)