Criminal Defendant Not Entitled To Automatic Reversal Of Conviction As Remedy For Trial Court’s Erroneous Denial Of A Pitchess Motion

In People v. Gaines, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, April 30, 2009), the California Supreme Court considered the issue of whether an outright reversal of a criminal conviction or a remand for a showing of prejudice is the appropriate remedy where a trial court erroneously denies a Pitchess motion to discover personnel records of a peace officer. The California Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is not entitled to an automatic reversal of a criminal conviction where a trial court erroneously denies such a motion and instead must demonstrate that he or she was prejudiced by the failure to disclose the relevant information.

Facts

Rodney Louis Gaines (“Gaines”) was arrested after Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff Roger Izzo (“Izzo”) claimed that Gaines twice approached him to offer to sell him drugs while Izzo was working undercover. Izzo claims that the second time Gaines approached him, Gaines handed him a glass pipe and .03 grams of cocaine base. Izzo contacted two other deputies to detain Gaines. The two deputies chased Gaines and eventually caught him. The deputies claim that, when they caught Gaines, his mouth was clenched closed and he appeared to be chewing and then swallowing something. When Gaines finally opened his mouth, the deputies claim that he had a white residue on the inside of his mouth and on his tongue.

At trial, Gaines, who was a convicted felon and admitted cocaine addict, denied that he offered to sell Izzo drugs. Gaines claimed that he saw another man approach Izzo’s car. That same man asked to borrow Gaines’ pipe and then left the pipe in the alley by a trash receptacle. After Gaines retrieved his pipe, a police officer grabbed him by the shirt and forced him to the ground. He claimed the cocaine the officer found must have been left in the pipe by the other man. A jury convicted Gaines of possessing cocaine base and a smoking device and sentenced him to 11 years in prison.

Gaines appealed to the Court of Appeal and argued that the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion to discover information in the personnel records of the police officers involved in the arrest. Specifically, Gaines sought to discover records relating to whether the officers had previously (1) planted evidence, (2) falsified records, or (3) “committed acts demonstrating dishonesty.”

The Court of Appeal “conditionally reversed” the judgment against Gaines and remanded the case back to the trial court so that the lower court could conduct a review of the requested personnel records. The Court of Appeal held that, if the trial court found no relevant information upon its inspection of the records, it should reinstate the judgment of the conviction. If, however, the inspection should reveal relevant information, the Court of Appeal ordered the trial court (1) to order the disclosure of the personnel records, (2) to allow Gaines an opportunity to show that he was prejudiced by the failure to disclose the records, and (3) to “order a new trial if there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had the information been disclosed.”

Supreme Court Decision

The People and Gaines agreed with the Court of Appeal’s holding that the trial court erred when it failed to conduct an in camera hearing of the officers’ personnel records. The People did not challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision to conditionally reverse the judgment against Gaines and to remand the case for the trial court to review the records. Gaines, however, objected to the Court of Appeal’s ruling. He argued that he was entitled to a new trial simply because the trial court erroneously withheld the requested information. He claimed that he did not need to show that he was prejudiced by the failure to disclose the requested information. The Supreme Court rejected Gaines’ argument and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Under the California Penal Code and Evidence Code, “A criminal defendant, on a showing of good cause is entitled to discovery of information in the confidential records of a peace officer when that information is relevant to defend against a criminal charge.” The request to discover such information is commonly known as a Pitchess motion. The proper remedy for a trial court’s erroneous denial of a request for Pitchess discovery where the court has not reviewed the records in camera is not for the appellate court to make an outright reversal but to order “a conditional reversal with directions to review the requested documents in chambers on remand.”

After a trial court reviews the confidential records in private, it may decide that the records contain no relevant information. In such a circumstance, the trial court should reinstate the judgment. If the trial court determines that the information should be disclosed, it should order disclosure and then order a new trial if it is reasonably probable that a different outcome would have been reached if the information had been disclosed when requested. A trial court’s finding that the information should have been disclosed, however, “is not equivalent to a finding that such information would have had any effect on the outcome of the underlying court proceeding—or, indeed, even a finding that such information would have been admissible.” In order to obtain relief, a defendant “must also demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the evidence been disclosed.”

The Court rejected Gaines’ argument that a heightened standard of prejudice must be applied where there has been a failure to disclose evidence. Gaines claimed that a “harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard” should be applied because anything less would impinge on his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court rejected this argument finding that, even if evidence was withheld that could have been used to impeach the deputies, Gaines “suffered no restriction on the scope of their cross-examination and was free to cross-examine these witnesses on any relevant subject.”

Questions

If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.

Mona Ebrahimi | 916.321.4500