*1 No. 24247. June 1981.] [S.F. Petitioners, al., et
FRED DUNLAP HOLMAN COUNTY, Respondent; THE MONTEREY COURT OF SUPERIOR PEOPLE, THE in Interest. Party Real
Counsel &
Robert T. Hatcher and Duncan Hatcher for Petitioners.
No appearance Respondent. Philibosian, General, H. Chief
George Robert Deukmejian, Attorney General, O'Brien, P. Assistant Attorney Assistant Edward Attorney Kirk, General, D. and Charles R. Deputy Attorneys William Stein B. General, in for Real Interest. Party Kottmeier, (San Bernardino), Joseph and A. Attorney
Dennis District Burns, Amici Curiae on behalf of Real District as Attorney, Deputy Party in Interest.
Opinion a in a RICHARDSON, J. consider the extent to which defendant We prior prelimi- pretrial discovery criminal is entitled proceeding that, we within the will conclude appear, examination. As nary reasonable, a limited of the magistrate, discretion permissible. 6, 1980, filed against petitioners
On criminal was complaint a May (Health of offenses. variety Fred Holman Cynthia alleging and substance], 11351 Code, a controlled [possession & Saf. §§ possession], sale], [sale], [possession for [unauthorized Code, 12025 [carry- Pen. marijuana]; for sale [possession §§ firearm].) Petitioners loaded [carrying ing weapon], concealed was for June scheduled were and a arraigned 4, 1980. a motion for dis- in court municipal filed
On May petitioners or of various materials inspection disclosure or covery, seeking including or its People agents, possession in the information technicians, witnesses, state- any and experts all names and addresses of witnesses, and police expert reports, ments made defendants resisted the motion successfully The prosecutor evidence. any physical his as magistrate, in role court municipal judge, on the basis prosecutor sug- discovery. any lacked order jurisdiction “welcome to that, anything my was defense counsel although gested basis,” to “set nevertheless it would unwise informal file on an just from the the discovery procedures all of aup precedent by dragging stage.” hearing into the trial court down 10, 1980, from court to superior mandate petitioners sought On June The writ was de- motion. their compel grant the magistrate Thereafter, relief in the Court of further sought nied. petitioners court to superior writ directing which Appeal, granted peremptory the municipal enter a new order compelling vacate its order and to to consid- motion. We petitioners’ granted court to reconsider raised, proceedings and we further stayed er the issue important *4 determination. court our final municipal pending “the of an ac we have said that As a general proposition, his defense to a in the course of preparing cused to seek discovery in the ab doctrine evolving criminal is a created prosecution judicially A defendant’s motion sence guiding legislation. of [Citations.] court, the trial is addressed to the sound discretion of discover solely when the" of to order interests discovery which has inherent power (Pitchess (1974) 11 Court so demand. v. justice Superior [Citations.]” 531, 897, cau 522 P.2d We have also Cal.Rptr. 305].) Cal.3d 535 [113 tioned, however, over criminal power that “The exercise of judicial is silent must be which inheres in courts when the discovery Legislature spoken.... when the has tempered Legislature restrained [I]t in conflict with powers would be to exercise our inherent inappropriate (1978) (Runyan) v. Court Municipal existing legislation.” (People 523, 609, 574 Cal.3d P.2d Cal.Rptr. [143
Thus, of de availability in expand we declined Runyan by situations already specified position procedures beyond particular Code, In the (See 1335 et seq.) Pen. Legislature. § intent to case, however, of comparable expression legislative we find no Pe preliminary hearing. limit the of availability that at safeguards, other provides, among nal Code section 859 “shall” prosecutor with counsel the court appearance defendant’s first crime re arrest and all inspect copy police, allow the defendant to calling This provision, privileged. to the extent not otherwise ports, cannot be deemed reports of specified limited disclosure mandatory discretionary withhold reasonable an intent to express so requires. Signifi if the interest of justice the preliminary hearing, limited disclosure adopting foregoing cantly, Legislature in- that “It is the in the enacting legislation stated provision expressly act shall construed tent of the this Legislature nothing (Stats. 1975, of in a criminal case.” impair limit or any rights 3.) ch. § (with
Indeed, cases have assumed People acknowledge, as the several would be point) out of analysis jurisdictional (See Theodor v. basis. discretionary available from the on Cal.Rptr. Court Superior [104 examina witness at preliminary 234] [disclosure informant/material (1958) 50 P.2d Cal.2d tion]; Superior Mitchell v. Court [330 (1958) 50 Court [same]; Priestly Superior v. [330 48] (1980) 103 776-777 Cal.App.3d P.2d v. Hertz [same]; People 39] supporting and information [discovery reports 233] enforcement]; Municipal Saulter discriminatory defense of 231, 248, fn. 4 [discovery 75 Cal.App.3d 266] ag based theory upon unnecessary information self-defense supporting police officers].) gression
Theodor, concerned the of defendant and Priestly Mitchell *5 fac- learn the examination—a during preliminary an informant’s name the than the one. Yet present tual situation somewhat different in Priestly here. We explained rationale of these cases seems pertinent that, is hearing ... to determine preliminary the of the purpose “Since trial, commit the defendant for whether there is evidence to competent to at that time is deter- identity] necessary disclosure an informant’s [of (50 search is competent.” mine whether the evidence the acquired by Hertz, we has a 819.) “If conclude a defendant expressed As which hearing, defense at a preliminary to an affirmative present it to be meaningful, in order for that [citations], now seems clear to hearing. the must include the to obtain opportunity added.) (103 at italics Cal.App.3d p. [Citations.]” assert, to however, jurisdiction The that lacks magistrate the People pretrial order only may “courts” discovery They argue issue orders. not in that “a is an magistrate our recent statement discovery, citing court, he not court, She or is a a court.... superior competent ferior or v. a ‘court’ ....” Peters (People is upon Peters People’s The reliance 651].) was whether a magistrate for involved
misplaced, question that case section au former Penal Code “court” within the meaning justice.” “in furtherance of action a court to dismiss an thorizing amendment a 1980 by (the abrogated which was ruling Peters has discretion a whether 1385), to decide did not purport § reasonably the accused to enable orders discovery to issue pretrial a question That case involved examination. for the preliminary prepare 1385; in section Penal Code former namely, interpretation, of statutory (Ac case, statutes to interpret. exist no controlling there present (DeRoco) Cal.App.3d cord, Justice People 80-81 in the absence above, it rule that general
As is the we indicated to order power appropriate the inherent courts have contrary legislation exists, and inherent power may We believe a similar discovery. pretrial to deter- exercised, power their ancillary statutory be magistrates defendant to answer to hold the mine whether there is cause probable is (Pen. Code, 872). role directed to- The magistrate’s statutory §§ the truth or of the falsity ward assessment of making defendant; well assist in may filed charges against such a determination. practical magistrates assert a reason for People denying “The inevita- preliminary hearing: to order
power a ‘preliminary’ ble in what is to be protraction supposed proceeding which from ... inconsistent inexorably completely flows in the preliminary hearing proc- with the intentional envisioned brevity is not ess.” As the People emphasize, trial, and those which are available discovery procedures prepare trial nor in the context. applicable appropriate neither may not We observation. We do intend fully agree foregoing sug- with discovery requests, should or gest magistrates routinely grant *6 in the absence of a discovery procedures, authorize time-consuming is to for the discovery reasonably necessary prepare such showing examination, will delay and that not or preliminary discovery unduly is aimed at the discovery facilitating Pretrial prolong proceeding. appellate swift not it. justice, thwarting Similarly, administration applications courts seldom entertain pretrial extraordinary should (see &Tel. Tel. Co. v. writ review of orders discovery Pacific 161, (1970) 718, 465 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 2 Cal.3d 169 Court Superior [84 such review would 854]), unduly delay preliminary if especially hearing. however, we conclude that a
Subject foregoing qualifications, reasonable, the restricted of the purpose limited directed to discovery available, should be in the discretion of examination
preliminary Salmon, (Accord, to that Criminal Dis magistrate, prior examination. (1975) Preliminary At and Examination Santa covery Before 665, 687-693.) Clara Law. Let a writ of mandate issue court peremptory directing superior 27, 1980, mandate, to its of June and enter a denying to vacate order mo- petitioners’ new order court reconsider municipal compelling tion for of our discovery light opinion.
Tobriner, Newman, J., Grodin, J.,* J., Mosk, concurred. J. and BIRD, A de- C. J. I concur the conclusion reached the majority. and fendant is entitled to to a has the to order it.1 authority is It that a defendant’s forgotten should not prosecutor to disclose process requires in the Constitution. Due rooted defendant, relat- including to a evidence all material evidence favorable of witnesses. v. punishment, credibility (People ed to and the guilt, 534 P.2d (1975) Cal.Rptr. 14 Cal.3d [121 Ruthford discov- that the scope permissible This court has 1341].) recognized of the “to ascertainment enlarged promote orderly must be ery (Jones Superior truth.” v. Court 1213].) 96 A.L.R.2d is con- also based on hearing at a statutory” right A defendant has the “constitutional
stitutional law. hearing at the preliminary an affirmative defense (Jennings witnesses. Superior the prosecution’s cross-examine 440, 428 Discov- P.2d ensure that these and to rights is to effectuate necessary ery on to answer based cause hold probable evaluation of magistrate’s dis- that require “‘The reasons of the evidence. accurate assessment an at the preliminary disclosure require trial also closure at the *7 Council of the Judicial *Assigned by Chairperson the (1978) 21 Cal.3d distinguishing People v. Peters majority’s difficulty 1The 646, problems this indication of the 651], is one more 581 P.2d but Cal.Rptr. [147 un not a “court” held that that case and when it decided court created the cases and hold that Peters 1385. I would overrule Code section der Penal magistrates. to apply equally authorizing “courts” to order to the defendant show enable may The of these ... rights .... exercise thus to him for trial and cause to commit that there is no reasonable (Theodor v. Su a criminal trial.’” the and expense avoid degradation 234], 501 P.2d (1972) Cal.Rptr. Court perior [104 (1958) 50 Cal.2d Mitchell v. Court quoting Superior [330 omitted; Salmon, andAt Be 48], Discovery citations see Criminal P.2d (1975) Law. 15 Santa Clara the Preliminary Examination fore 687-693.) I at hearing, to the Having preliminary recognized right such the hearing, take the next and a right would step recognize before a fair trial mandates as courts have the to right that just recognized (Cf. at trial. Cash v. Superior not discovery, just discovery 72, 75 investigation P.2d Careful Court [346 for trial access to thorough require of criminal charges preparation as As the Court of said Appeal relevant information as early possible. 770, 776 (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d v. Hertz People on “If we conclude a defendant has 233], a case relied the by majority, defense a preliminary hearing, to an affirmative at it clear, must which now in order to be meaningful, seems (Cita to the prior hearing.” include the to obtain discovery opportunity omitted, added.) tions italics dis hearing limit
Although purport pre-preliminary majority for the preliminary “reasonably necessary prepare covery examination,” be since the func narrowly this should not read language are broad and process in our criminal hearing tions the preliminary (Hawkins (1978) 22 Cal.3d 587-589 complex. Superior Letwin, see & Pre 916]; Graham Field Findings in Los Some liminary Hearing Angeles: 916, 916-957.) The 18 UCLA L.Rev. Observations Legal-Policy For most before trial. plead guilty vast of criminal defendants majority defendants, will the only they be felony preliminary hearing Therefore, preliminary hearing must will have. needed for the prepare to include information enough extensive examination. of functions served myriad will lead Broad de- enabling judge, prosecutor, pretrial proceedings, more efficient assessments of defense to make more accurate fendant and counsel Discovery of the criminal dispositions charges.' and of proposed evidence this court said over hearings. As will also lead to fairer preliminary *8 partakes while “nondisclosure discussing pretrial discovery, years ago, trial, of a ... the purpose sight nature a game” “lose[s] Court, (Cash v. Superior supra, ascertainment of truth.” ascer 72, 75.) of a purpose ensure truth, is essential to tain the fairness of our criminal process.
Miller, J.,* concurred. * Council. Assigned by Chairperson of the Judicial