In re WILBUR F. LITTLEFIELD on Habeas Corpus.
No. S025426
Supreme Court of California
May 20, 1993
5 Cal. 4th 122
Wilbur F. Littlеfield, Public Defender, in pro. per., Laurence M. Sarnoff, Stuart Alan Chapman and Albert J. Menaster, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.
Chase, Rotchford, Drukker & Bogust, John A. Daly, Joan E. Hewitt and Robert W. Carney for Respondent Superior Court.
Ira Reiner and Gil Garcetti, District Attorneys, Donald J. Kaplan, Diana L. Summerhayes and Brentford J. Ferreira, Deputy District Attorneys, for Respondent People.
GEORGE, J.-Petitioner Wilbur F. Littlefield, the Public Defender of Los Angeles County, challenges a judgment of the municipal court holding him in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a discovery order made pursuant to the reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115 (
We further conclude, however, that the written judgment of contempt failed to comply with the strict statutory requirements applicable to judgments of contempt, as articulated and applied in past judicial decisions, because the judgment failed to specify sufficiently the particular acts upon which the trial court based the exercise of its contempt power. For this reason, the judgment of contempt must be set aside.2
I
On May 9, 1991, a complaint was filed against defendant Armando Orosco Montiel in the Municipal Court for the Glendale Judicial District of Los Angeles County, alleging three misdemeanor violations:
On that same day defendant Montiel, represented by Deputy Public Defender Stuart A. Chapman, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On June
On June 17, when the defense answered ready for trial, the prosecution informed the court that the defense had not complied with the prosecution‘s informal request for discovery. The court ordered the defense to comply with the prosecution‘s discovery request forthwith. Chapman then requested a brief stay of any discovery order so that he could file points and authorities addressing “[c]onstitutional issues” relating to Proposition 115. (At that time, our decision in Izazaga v. Superior Court, supra, 54 Cal.3d 356, had not yet been filed.) After a short recess, Chapman filed written opposition to the prosecution‘s discovery request, including a demand for 15 days’ formal notice under the local discovery rules. In his opposition, Chapman urged that the provisions authorizing prosecutorial discovery under Proposition 115 were inapplicable to misdemeanor cases and violated various constitutional rights and privileges of the defendant.
With respect to the issue of notice, the trial court ruled that
Chapman notified the court that he had been instructed by his superiors at the public defender‘s office to refuse to comply with such an order. The court then put the matter over to the following day for further proceedings to determine which sanctions, among those authorized by
On that date, petitioner Wilbur F. Littlefield appeared with his counsel, Albert J. Menaster, a deputy in the public defender‘s office. Menaster,
The trial court, while acknowledging that “[defense counsel] don‘t have аn address, and I can‘t order them to deliver that which they do not have...,” nevertheless made a finding that “there is a reasonable and likely possibility that Sandra Pavon is a witness who has material information with respect to this case, and the defense is under an obligation to provide either the witness‘[s] address or obtain the address so the prosecution may interview the witness.” The court ordered the defense to contact the witness by telephone, obtain her address, and provide it to the prosecution, or, alternatively, to produce the witness in court in order to afford the prosecution an opportunity to interview her prior to trial.3 Petitioner then expressly declined to comply with the court‘s order, opining that it exceeded the court‘s authority to enforce prosecutorial discovery. Petitioner also related his perception that he would be committing a gross neglect of his duties, were he to comply with such an order pending the California Supreme Court‘s determination of the constitutionality of the reciprocal discovery provisions. The trial court proceeded to hold petitioner in contempt, imposed a sanction of five days’ incarceration in the county jail and a fine of $1,000, and ordered execution of the sanction stayed until August 5, 1991.
Following conclusion of the trial, Chapman requested that the court reconsider its contempt finding, in view of the revelation at trial that Pavon had been present at the scene of defendant‘s arrest, that the investigating police officers had obtained her name and interviewed her at that time, ascertaining that she had been a passenger in the vehicle allegedly driven by defendant, but that the officers had failed to include her address or her statements in their report. Chapman argued the discovery order was invalid because the police had had equal access to the witness, could have obtained her address, but had neglected to do so. The court nevertheless declined to withdraw its contempt order.
The written judgment of contempt had been signed on June 24, 1991, but was not filed until July 2, 1991. On July 3, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, seeking to set aside the judgment of contempt. The municipal court, as respondent, and the District Attorney‘s Office of Los Angeles County, representing the People as real party in interest, filed “returns.” The superior court summarily denied the petition. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal. By that time, several of the issues raised by petitioner had been resolved adversely to his position, including his constitutional challenges to thе prosecutorial discovery provisions of Proposition 115 (see Izazaga v. Superior Court, supra, 54 Cal.3d 356) and his contention that these provisions do not apply in misdemeanor cases (see Hobbs v. Municipal Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 670 [284 Cal.Rptr. 655]). The Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition.
Petitioner sought review in this court, which we granted on April 23, 1992, transferring the matter to the Court of Appeal with instructions to vacate the order denying the petition and issue an order directing the municipal court to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted. After issuing an order to show cause, the Court of Appeal, over the dissent of one justice, again upheld the judgment of contempt. In its opinion, the majority concluded that the defense was obligated to make available to the prosecution the statutorily designated information that was readily available to the defense, and could not subvert the intent of the statute by failing,
We again granted review, to determine whether the reciprocal discovery provisions of
II
In criminal proceedings, under the reciprocal discovery provisions of
In construing these provisions to determine whether they authorized the discovery order made in the present case, our primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the initiative measure. (See Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063, 1072 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 160, 820 P.2d 262]; Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798 [268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 789 P.2d 934]; see also Izazaga v. Superior Court, supra, 54 Cal.3d, at p. 372.) “To determine intent, “‘The court turns first to the words themselves for the answer.“‘” (Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 798.) Among the primary purposes of the new discovery chapter, as expressly stated in
In light of the foregoing objectives of the new discovery chapter, we conclude that the statutory language of
An Oregon court, applying a discovery statutory provision nearly identicаl to
Other discovery statutes (including those in vаrious state and federal jurisdictions), as well as judicially promulgated rules relating to pretrial disclosure, routinely require a party to disclose the names and addresses of those persons whose identity must be disclosed pretrial. For example, sister state discovery provisions patterned after the standards of the American Bar Association (II ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, std. 11-2.1 (2d ed. 1980), p. 11-14) generally require the prosecution to provide the defense with the names and addresses of persons whom the prosecution intends to call as witnesses at trial. (See 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (1984 ed.) § 19.3(f), p. 491.) Federal courts and a majority of sister state jurisdictions require the defense to disclose the names and addresses of witnesses upon whom the defense intends to rely in establishing an alibi. (2 LaFave & Israel, op. cit. supra, § 19.4(b), pp. 511-512.) California civil discovery statutes require the parties to disclose the names and addresses of their prospective expert trial witnesses. (
These statutes and rules recognize implicitly, if not explicitly--that the disclosure of only the name of the witness whose identity must be divulged prior to trial, unaccompanied by information regarding the whereabouts of that witness, generally would not fulfill the purpose of the disclosure requirement. For example, with respect to the disclosure of alibi witnesses, a false alibi defense based upon perjured testimony “can be readily discouraged by affording the prosecution an opportunity to prepare fоr their testimony. . . .” (2 LaFave & Israel, op. cit. supra, § 19.4(b), p. 512.) Such an opportunity, however, would be hampered greatly, were the prosecution to be unable to contact the prospective alibi witnesses.
For this reason, the practice of deliberately failing to learn the whereabouts of a witness has not been condoned. In Eleazer, supra, 1 Cal.3d 847, this court stated: “We cannot accept the suggestion of many Courts of Appeal that the prosecution automatically fulfills its obligation of disclosure when it reveals all that it knows, despite the inadequacy of such data to
It is true that Eleazer involved a police informant, and that the constitutional obligations it articulated apply only to such informants who are material witnesses to a crime. Under the discovery scheme adopted by Proposition 115, however, both the prosecution and the defense now have the statutory obligation to disclose to the other party the names and reasonably accessible addresses of witnesses--an obligation given constitutional force by the addition of
Moreover, courts in general have discouraged the practice of deliberately failing to learn or acquire information that, under applicable statutes or case law, must be disclosed pretrial, concluding that such gamesmanship is inconsistent with the quest for truth, which is the objective of modern discovery. In Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 222], the plaintiff, seeking to justify her failure to make a timely designation of expert witnesses, argued that she had not yet retained these witnesses as of the disclosure deadline. Rejecting her proffered excuse, the court stated, “What [plaintiff] seeks is a return to cat-and-mouse discovery, where each side triеs, as do Tom and Jerry, to sandbag the other. We eschew any construction of the discovery statutes which would lead to this absurd result.” (Id., at p. 1115.)
We also recognize that
In view of the reciprocal nature of the discovery obligations under
Petitioner argues that under
We agree with petitioner that in the event
California courts long have interpreted the prosecutorial obligation to disclose relevant materials in the possession of the prosecution to include information “within the possession or control” of the prosecution. (See Hill v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 812, 816 [112 Cal.Rptr. 257, 518 P.2d 1353, 95 A.L.R.3d 820].) In Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531, 535, we construed the scope of possession and control as encompassing information “reasonably accessible” to the prosecution. In Engstrom v. Superior Court (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 240, 243 [97 Cal.Rptr. 484] (disapproved on other grounds in Hill v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 820), the court held that materials discoverable by the defense include information in the possession of all agencies (to which the prosecution has access) that are part of the criminal justice system, and not solely information “in the hands of the prosecutor.” (20 Cal.App.3d at p. 244.) In People v. Coyer (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 839, 843 [191 Cal.Rptr. 376], the court described information subject to disclosure by the prosecution as that “readily available” to the prosecution and not accessible to the defense.
We find no basis for petitioner‘s assumption that, by designating discoverable information under
Thus, in light of the purpose of the discovery provisions contained in Proposition 115, we conclude that
Of course, in light of our construction of
In the present case, the record supports the trial court‘s finding that Pavon was a person whom the defense reasonably anticipated it was likely to call as a witness: she appeared in court on the date the case was called for trial, and the deputy public defender requested that the court order her return on the dаte to which the case was trailed for trial.
The record also reflects defense counsel did not establish that Pavon‘s address was not reasonably accessible to the defense. Deputy Public Defender Menaster represented to the court that defense trial counsel (Chapman) had not asked the witness for her address, fearing that she would be intimidated by contact with the police department or the district attorney‘s office-not that he was unable to obtain the address. Petitioner therefore failed to establish that the address was not reasonably accessible, and the trial court‘s order compelling petitioner to contact the witness by telephone, in order to acquire her address, was authorized as an order “necessary to enforce the provisions” of
III
Although we have determined that the underlying discovery order was authorized by
Petitioner refused in open court to comply with the order that he obtain and disclose the address of Pavon.
Pursuant to this statutory provision, the trial court issued its order providing, in part: “[[] 3. On June 17, 1991, the case was again called on the trial calendar. Both the People and the defense announced they were ready to proceed. The prosecutor informed the Court that the defense had failed to provide any discovery, either formally or informally, and requested discovery relating to Ms. Pavon. The defense thereupon filed points and authorities respecting their opposition to the discovery request, and filed a demand for fifteen days notice. After reading and considering each motion, and upon hearing argument, the Court denied the defense motion to oppose discovery and ordered the defense to comply with the discovery request. Mr. Chapman stated it was the position of the Los Angeles County Public Defender to refuse to comply with any such order and thereupon refused to yield the requested information. [][] 4. The Court considered the numerous options for noncompliance under Penal Code section 1054.5(B), and made certain findings. The transcript of those findings from June 17, 1991 are incorporated into this Order and Judgment by reference. [9] 5. On June 20, 1991, the Court held a hearing to determine whether the Los Angeles County Public
The order then recites that in the immediate view and presence of the court, petitioner refused to comply with the discovery order, that the court adjudged petitioner guilty of contempt of court, and that a transcript of a “June 24, 1991 proceeding” was incorporated by reference into the order and judgment of contempt.
We conclude the foregoing written judgment of contempt fails to satisfy the requirements of
The recital-of-facts requirement is not met by a mere statement of the trial judge‘s conclusions regarding the nature of the conduct giving rise to the contempt. The order adjudging a person guilty of contempt must be stated with sufficient particularity to demonstrate on its face, “without aid of speculation or reference to any extrinsic document[,] that a contempt actually occurred.” (Hawk v. Superior Court (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 108, 125, fn. 16 [116 Cal.Rptr. 713];10 see McCann v. Municipal Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 527, 536 [270 Cal.Rptr. 640]; see also 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Trial, § 178, p. 175.)
The written judgment of contempt makes no reference to this June 20 discovery order directing petitioner to obtain and disclose the address of Pavon. It refers only to the discovery order made on June 17, and states that petitioner refused to comply with that order. The record, however, does not support a finding that petitioner was held in contempt on June 17 or refused to comply with any discovery order made on that date. Rather, as established by the record, the court held petitioner in contempt for refusing to obey the June 20 discovery order. Accordingly, the judgment of contempt is invalid, because it fails to make any mention of the June 20 order or of petitioner‘s refusal to obey that order. Thus, the judgment of contempt fails to comply with the requirement of
For these reasons, the judgment of contempt is invalid and must be set aside.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court with directions to set aside the judgment of contempt entered by the municipal court.
Lucas, C. J., Panelli, J., Kennard, J., Arabian, J., and Baxter, J., concurred.
MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting. -I concur in part III of the majority opinion and the result, i.e., that the judgment of contempt is defective on its face and must be set aside for that reason.
I dissent, however, from part II of that opinion and the conclusion that
A loose dictum in Justice Traynor‘s opinion for the majority in Jones v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 56 [22 Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919, 96 A.L.R.2d 1213] appears to have led to the problem being improperly resolved ever since. He wrote, in one ill-conceived sentence, that discovery “should not be a one-way street.” (Id. at p. 60.) The phrase has given rise to an assumption that the contestants in a criminal case somehow compete on a basis of equality. But under principles of American jurisprudence recognized since the founding of the republic, the prosecution and the defense do not travel equally on a mythical two-way street. The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is clothed with a presumption of innocence. He cannot be compelled to incriminate himself, and, therefore, he may stand mute and in no mаnner be required to aid the prosecution in proving his guilt.
Justice Peters, in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Jones, reasoned that “[i]t is the constitutional right of the defendant, who is presumed to be innocent, to stand silent while the state attempts to meet its burden of proof, that is, to prove the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, up until now, did not have to take an active part in the ascertainment of the facts. The majority opinion does not merely enlarge a simple judicial principle of pretrial procedure, it fundamentally alters our concepts
Justice Dooling, also concurring and dissenting in Jones, was prescient. The deviation was relatively minor in that case, he declared, but he was “fearful as a matter of policy of the future outcome of even so small an initial court-created inroad upon the heretofore unquestioned right of a defendant in a criminal case to remain silent, if he chooses, at every stage of the proceeding against him.” (Jones v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 69 (conc. & dis. opn. of Dooling, J.).)
Justice Dooling‘s fears were realized with the promotion of Proposition 115 and the decision in Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 [285 Cal.Rptr. 231, 815 P.2d 304]. The promoters of the measure and the Izazaga majority overlooked all the foregoing principles.
The majority herein sugarcoat their cyanide pill by ordering the contempt judgment in this case set aside. That is helpful to petitioner personally, but only for the moment. He and other criminal defense counsel in the future will be unable to properly protect defendants who may choose to assert their constitutional right to remain silent and to give no assistance to the prosecutors who are attempting to convict them. Indeed, the majority would approve of a court order requiring defense counsel to affirmatively seek information not previously divulged--e.g., addresses--in order to pass it on to aid the prosecution. At that point defense counsel, acting under compulsion, will no longer be permitted to serve the avowed interests of his client. He will become an arm of the prosecution itself.
The fundamental issue in this case was discussed at length in Izazaga. I adhere to the views I expressed in my dissenting opinion. (Izazaga v. Superior Court, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 387-402 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)