Shorts v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
24 Cal. App. 5th 709
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Donald R. Shorts was convicted of three counts of capital murder, found with multiple special circumstances, and sentenced to death (automatic appeal pending).
- At trial the prosecution introduced and elicited evidence about Shorts's prior conviction (Brooks), an unadjudicated homicide (Parker), and other incidents listed in the People’s notice of aggravation; those matters were used at guilt and/or penalty phases.
- Appellate counsel (State Public Defender) moved in superior court under Penal Code §1054.9 and the court’s inherent power (Code Civ. Proc. §187) to preserve potentially discoverable materials pending appointment of habeas counsel.
- The superior court granted preservation limited to records directly tied to the Wynne/Watts/Livingston prosecutions and denied preservation as to several prior incidents, CDCR records beyond the capital file, coroner files, and superior court/judicial records.
- Shorts petitioned for writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal evaluated the permissible scope of a §1054.9 preservation order in light of Morales and related authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shorts) | Defendant's Argument (AG/superior court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of preservation as to prior crimes/uncharged conduct introduced at trial | Preservation must cover all potentially discoverable materials relating to any crimes or conduct discussed at guilt or penalty phases (including items in other agencies’ files) | Preservation should be limited to materials held by agencies that directly investigated the capital homicides (Wynne/Watts/Livingston) | Held for Shorts: preservation must extend to materials in possession of prosecution and law enforcement relating to all prior crimes/uncharged conduct presented at trial (including those originally in other agencies' files) |
| Preservation of CDCR records | Must preserve CDCR records relating to incidents used for cross-examination or aggravation, not just records generated for the capital prosecution | Only CDCR records actually reviewed/possessed by the prosecutor should be preserved | Held for Shorts: preserve CDCR records insofar as they relate to incidents that were discoverable at trial (prosecutor had access) |
| Preservation of coroner/medical examiner records | Coroner offices assisted prosecutions and produced autopsy evidence introduced at trial; their records are law-enforcement-related and must be preserved | Coroners are not law enforcement agencies and thus outside §1054.9 scope | Held for Shorts: coroner records relating to victims and incidents presented at trial are subject to preservation (they assisted prosecutors) |
| Preservation of judicial and probation records (court files; probation dept.) | Judicial/probation files (including related cases) should be preserved under the court’s inherent powers and retention statutes | Morales limits preservation orders to §1054.9 materials; judicial/non-law-enforcement agencies are excluded; probation files are court records and thus not subject to §1054.9 preservation | Held for AG: Morales precludes preservation orders directed to judicial records; probation records that are court records are not preserved beyond §1054.9 scope |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Morales), 2 Cal.5th 523 (Cal. 2017) (recognizes superior court power under CCP §187 to preserve evidence potentially subject to Penal Code §1054.9 but limits preservation to §1054.9 scope)
- In re Steele, 32 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. 2004) (defines §1054.9 discoverable materials and limits “law enforcement authorities” to those involved in investigation or prosecution)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (Cal. 2010) (discusses §1054.9 postconviction discovery and relation to habeas practice)
- Barnett v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 890 (Cal. 2010) (examines purposes of §1054.9 and guidance from pretrial discovery statutes)
- In re Littlefield, 5 Cal.4th 122 (Cal. 1993) (prosecution’s access to records of other agencies makes those records discoverable)
- People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (Cal. 2012) (autopsy reports serve criminal investigation/prosecution functions and can be part of law-enforcement records)