216 Cal. App. 4th 24
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sisson charged with one murder and three counts of assaulting a peace officer; incident involved Carlsbad police officers firing at his vehicle, resulting in the death of a passenger.
- Sisson moved under Pitchess and Evidence Code 1043/ Penal Code 832.5 seeking peace officer personnel records for dishonesty, false reporting, and excessive force.
- Trial court granted Pitchess motions in part for dishonesty/false reporting but denied excessive force discovery; ordered in camera review.
- Sisson provided declarations alleging officers lied about identifying themselves and about actions during the incident; alleged prior dishonesty to impeach credibility.
- Trial court conducted two in camera hearings and relied on custodian testimony rather than examining all produced records; court did not fully comply with Mooc procedures.
- Petition granted in part; mandate issued directing new in camera review consistent with Mooc and this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause supported discovery of dishonesty/false reporting for certain officers | Sisson showed plausible scenario impeaching credibility | Court properly limited to Le; insufficient for others | Yes for May, Escanuelos, Westman, Colbert; no for Le |
| Whether good cause supported discovery of excessive force complaints | Excessive force complaints relevant to provocative act defense | No logical link to defense; not material to charges | Not established for Fettis, Kraus, Wisener |
| Whether the trial court must examine the records itself in an in camera review | Custodian's statements insufficient; records must be examined | Custodian's assessment acceptable under procedures | Trial court must examine produced records itself (cannot rely solely on custodian)–abused discretion |
| Whether Mooc procedures require a full in camera record and documentation of produced documents | Incomplete records; need record of documents examined and withheld | Procedural compliance optional documents listed | New in camera review required with proper Mooc-compliant record |
| Impact of provocative act murder doctrine on discoverability of officer misconduct | Past misconduct could affect defense to murder charges | Doctrine focuses on defendant's conduct; not on officer force reasonableness | Past excessive force complaints not establishing defense to murder; no material link for discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (Cal. 2005) (limits good cause; custodian must present potentially relevant documents to court)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Cal. 2001) (outline in camera procedures; locus of decisionmaking with trial court)
- Garcia v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 63 (Cal. 2007) (expands why and how information is discoverable in Pitchess)
- Giovanni B. v. Superior Court, 152 Cal.App.4th 312 (Cal. App. 2007) (affirms use of records for impeachment; process authority)
- People v. Cervantes, 26 Cal.4th 860 (Cal. 2001) (explains provocative act murder doctrine and focus on defendant's conduct)