Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. South Carolina

403 P.3d 144, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 490
California Supreme Court·Decided October 11, 2017·No. S243855·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The petition for review is granted. The parties will brief the following issue: When a law enforcement agency creates an internal Brady list (see Gov. Code, § 3305.5 ), and a peace officer on that list is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution, may the agency disclose to the prosecution (a) the name and identifying number of the officer and (b) that the officer may have relevant exonerating or impeaching material in his or her confidential personnel file, or can such disclosure be made only by court order on a properly filed Pitchess motion? (See Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ; People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 377 P.3d 847 ; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305 ; Pen. Code, §§ 832.7 - 832.8 ; Evid. Code, §§ 1043 - 1045.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. South Carolina, 403 P.3d 144, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 490 (Cal. 2017).

403 P.3d 144 (Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. South Carolina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Serrano v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2017)