Funk v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 26 June 1959 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ernest M. FUNK, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of State of California, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. L. A. 25404. |
Low, Stone & Emery and Joseph Stone, Beverly Hills, for petitioner.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan and Lewis Watnick, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent.
Petitioner was accused of having performed abortions in violation of section 274 of the Penal Code. At the preliminary hearing two women upon whom abortions were allegedly performed and the brother of one of them testified for the prosecution. On cross-examination it was shown that these witnesses had previously given oral statements to police officers relating to the matters covered in their testimony, that two of the statements had been recorded through the use of a stenotype machine, and that the third had been written by an officer in longhand. After being bound over to the superior court, petitioner, based on this showing, moved for an order directing that he be allowed to examine the original notes made by the officers and to inspect and copy written statements prepared from the notes. The motion was denied, and, upon petitioner's application to this court for relief, we issued an order to show cause why an appropriate writ should not be granted.
The showing made by petitioner is sufficient to entitle him to production of the documents he wishes to inspect. It is settled that, during trial, an accused can compel the People to produce written statements of prosecution witnesses relating to the matters covered in their testimony. People v. Chapman, 52 Cal.2d , 338 P.2d 428; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 585 et seq., 305 P.2d 1. As recent decisions of this court illustrate, there is no sound basis for applying a different rule merely because production is requested prior to, rather than during, trial. Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 707-708, 312 P.2d 698, established that an accused has the right, before trial, to obtain written statements made by him to police officers. In Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 330 P.2d 773, where a petitioner who was charged with violating section 288 of the Penal Code sought certain tape recordings for the purpose of refreshing his recollection prior to trial, we issued mandamus to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Aranda
...the police by any codefendant. (See generally People v. Garner, 57 Cal.2d 135, 142, 18 Cal.Rptr. 40, 367 P.2d 680; Funk v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 423, 424, 340 P.2d 593.) Without such information, a defendant, such as Aranda, would be unable to take the steps needed to insure that the co......
-
People v. Carranco, H032412 (Cal. App. 2/24/2010)
...of witnesses . . . whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial . . . ." (Pen. Code, § 1054.1, subd. (f); cf. Funk v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 423, 424.) People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792 stated on page 821: "[T]he existence of a plea agreement is relevant impeachment evidenc......
-
Joe Z. v. Superior Court
...755, 769, 3 Cal.Rptr. 148, 349 P.2d 964; Cash v. Superior Court, Supra, 53 Cal.2d 72, 75--76, 346 P.2d 407; Funk v. Superior Court, Supra, 52 Cal.2d 423, 424, 340 P.2d 593; Tuper v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 263, 331 P.2d 977; see People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 587, 305 P.2d 1.) This rule ......
-
People v. Terry
...654-655, 59 Cal.Rptr. 652; People v. Kostal, 159 Cal.App.2d 444, 451, 323 P.2d 1020, disapproved on other grounds in Funk v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 423, 425, 340 P.2d 593; see People v. Ellis, 65 Cal.2d 529, 537, 538, fn. 12, 55 Cal.Rptr. 385, 421 P.2d 393), but argues that the rule shou......
-
Table of cases
...805, §§12:31.2, 12:37 Fuller v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 690, 693, §11:211 Funk v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 423, §5:61 Furman v. DMV (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 416, §§11:72, 11:81 -G- G.C. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 371, §14:45 Gai v. City of Sel......
-
Discovery
...or preserved, whether oral or written, and whether or not signed or acknowledged by them. (1054.1(f); Funk v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 423.) Regarding the portion of this request which relates to oral statements of prosecution witnesses, note that the California Department of Justice......