55 Cal.App.5th 755
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Brandon Stewart was tried for forcible sexual penetration and rape of Doe 1 (age 15); the prosecution also called Doe 2 as an Evidence Code §1108 propensity witness. Stewart was convicted and sentenced to 13 years.
- Pretrial discovery included investigator notes mentioning a 2012 OPD report about Doe 2, but the prosecutor did not produce the OPD report or disclose that it contained potential impeachment material.
- Defense filed a Welfare & Institutions Code §827 petition to obtain juvenile records; the juvenile court did not produce records until after the jury returned its verdict. The post-trial CPS/juvenile records described prior similar sexual conduct by Doe 2 with another cousin and inconsistencies that could impeach Doe 2.
- Defense moved for a new trial on Brady grounds; the prosecutor submitted the OPD report under seal in opposition. The trial court denied the new-trial motion, ruling the records likely would have been excluded or too time-consuming to admit.
- The Court of Appeal held the prosecutor violated Brady by failing to inform defense that the OPD/juvenile report contained impeachment material, and reversed the conviction, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution suppressed Brady material (juvenile/OPD report re: Doe 2) | People: disclosure of investigator notes and notice of report satisfied Brady because defense could seek records via §827 | Stewart: prosecution knew report contents and should have disclosed impeachment material or notified court for review | Held: Prosecutor violated Brady by failing to inform defense that the report contained impeachment material; nondisclosure was suppression |
| Whether trial court or prosecutor had duty to conduct in camera review of juvenile files | People: juvenile court has exclusive §827 authority; prosecutor satisfied Brady by notifying defense of report existence | Stewart: trial court should have reviewed the report in camera or compelled production because prosecutor possessed it | Held: §827 gives juvenile court exclusive review authority; trial court not required to review, but prosecutor still had duty to disclose what it knew about contents |
| Whether suppressed material was Brady-material (i.e., favorable and material) | People: Doe 2 was collateral; guilt was established by other evidence; suppressed material not sufficiently material | Stewart: report impeached a key propensity witness and could have undermined confidence in verdict | Held: Suppressed juvenile/OPD information was material impeachment evidence such that nondisclosure undermined confidence in the verdict |
| Whether trial court erred in denying new trial based on Brady violation | People: even if disclosed, §352/Evid. Code limits would have barred or limited use; denial proper | Stewart: denial improper because impeachment value required permitting focused inquiry and possibly a retrial | Held: Trial court abused discretion in denying new-trial motion; suppression warranted reversal and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (in camera review can reconcile confidentiality with Brady rights)
- People v. Superior Court (Johnson), 61 Cal.4th 696 (2015) (disclosure of existence of confidential records plus statutory review can satisfy Brady)
- J.E. v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.4th 1329 (2014) (juvenile court must conduct in camera Brady review under §827 when petitioned)
- In re Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873 (1998) (Brady materiality standard and evaluation guidance)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Bagley materiality framework reaffirmed)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable probability standard for Brady materiality)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence bearing on witness credibility can require new trial)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974) (procedures for in camera review of law-enforcement personnel records)