Hinojosa v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 24 February 1976 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thomas HINOJOSA et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT, etc., COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent; The PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 14726. |
Andrew J. Freeman, James N. Pendleton, Norbert Ehrenfreund and Edward K. Curley, San Diego, for petitioners.
Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., Peter C. Lehman, San Diego, and Henry R. Mann, Deputy Dist. Attys., for respondent and real party in interest.
Petitioners Thomas Hinojosa, Christopher Everett Rodriguez, Henry Hector Rodriguez and Phillip Clemente seek a writ of mandate or prohibition to compel the respondent Superior Court of San Diego County to set aside its order denying discovery of various police records.
On August 10, 1975, at about 1:15 a.m., police responded to Pedro Espinoza's complaint of loud music being played in a building about half a block from his home. Upon arrival of the police the loud music was turned down, but was renewed shortly after they left. Espinoza summoned the police again at about 3:30 a.m.
Officers Jackson and Weber arrived at the scene. Jackson testified he contacted Hinojosa outside the building and asked him to turn down the music. Hinojosa walked into the building without answering. Jackson followed him inside and repeated his request. Hinojosa turned and pushed Jackson backward toward the door. Jackson told Hinojosa he would be arrested if he used force again. Hinojosa reacted by pushing Jackson harder and saying, Jackson then arrested him for battery on a police officer and attempted to put handcuffs on him. Hinojosa began struggling, and about 15 friends, led by Christopher Rodriguez, came to his aid. Jackson got up to face them, and Officer Weber tried to take control of Hinojosa, as Jackson was engulfed and manhandled by the crowd.
Officer Weber testified Sgt. Balliett then entered the room and tried unsuccessfully to calm the crowd. Henry and Christopher Rodriguez, Phillip Clemente, and others, wrested Hinojosa from Officer Weber's grasp. Sgt. Balliett called for 'cover' and reinforcements arrived five to six minutes later. Hinojosa was later apprehended outside the building by Weber and Balliett.
All defendants were charged by information with battery upon a peace officer (Pen.Code §§ 242 and 243) and all except Hinojosa were charged with lynching (Pen.Code § 405a) and rescue (Pen.Code § 4550). Hinojosa and Christopher Rodriguez were charged with disturbing the peace (Pen.Code § 415) and riot (Pen.Code § 404). Lastly, Hinojosa was charged with resisting an officer (Pen.Code § 148) and Christopher Rodriguez was charged with advocacy to kill or injure a peace officer (Pen.Code § 151). Each offense took place within the building when only Officers Weber, Jackson and Sgt. Balliett were present.
On November 3, 1975, Christopher Rodriguez filed a motion for discovery. He sought the records of any internal police investigations into citizen complaints of official misconduct against any police officers involved in his case. He specifically named Weber, Jackson and Balliett and five other policemen.
On November 13, 1975, Phillip Clemente filed a motion for discovery, seeking an order to direct the District Attorney and San Diego Police Department to produce all records of complaints of misconduct or use of excessive force pertaining to the officers involved in his case; he named Weber, Jackson and Balliett as well as six other policemen.
On November 14, 1975, Hinojosa joined in the discovery motion of Christopher Rodriguez and in addition asked for the records of any internal police investigation into the incident involved.
On November 25, 1975, Henry Rodriguez joined in the discovery motions of the other petitioners.
The superior court denied each motion without prejudice to renew them at trial.
Petitioners contend the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motions for discovery. We shall explain why we conclude an in camera inspection of the police files should be conducted, but restricted to citizen complaints and internal investigations regarding any assaultive behavior or ethnic prejudice displayed by policemen Weber, Jackson and Balliett; and any internal investigation of the incident itself.
(Murguia v. Municipal Court, 15 Cal.3d 286, 293, 124 Cal.Rptr. 204, 208, 540 P.2d 44, 48.)
A showing of good cause or plausible justification for inspection of the material sought is required, although proof of the existence of the item is not required (Hill v. Superior Court, supra, 10...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
...264, which, in footnote 7, employed the disjunctive phrasing. Earlier, the appellate court's decision in Hinojosa v. Superior Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 692, 695, 127 Cal.Rptr. 664, also employed the disjunctive phrasing, while citing to our own decision in Hill , supra , 10 Cal.3d at page ......
-
People v. Memro
...of Appeal have limited discovery to information about the officers directly "involved in the fracas...." (Hinojosa v. Superior Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 692, 697, 127 Cal.Rptr. 664; see also Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 [self-defense in resisting arre......
-
City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court
...123 Cal.Rptr. 242; Kelvin L. v. Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at p. 828, 133 Cal.Rptr. 325; Hinojosa v. Superior Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 692, 696-697, 127 Cal.Rptr. 664) and after the enactment of section 1043 (see Jalilie v. Superior Court, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 490, 240 Ca......
-
Lemelle v. Superior Court
...594, 478 P.2d 26; Ballard v. Superior Court, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 167, 49 Cal.Rptr. 302, 410 P.2d 838; Hinojosa v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.App.3d 692, 696, 127 Cal.Rptr. 664; In re Valerie E.,supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 218, 123 Cal.Rptr. 242.) When the requisite specificity is lacking or n......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
...in conformity with that trait would tend to exculpate the defendant or mitigate the offense. Hinojosa v. Superior Ct. (4th Dist.1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 692, 696; 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n Rep. (1965) pp. 1207-08; see Evid. C. §1103(a)(1). The following are typical situations illustrating this ......
-
Table of Cases null
...203 Cal. App. 3d 1231, 251 Cal. Rptr. 28 (1st Dist. 1988)—Ch. 4-C, §7.2.2(2); §7.4.2; §8.4.4(2)(b)[1] Hinojosa v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. App. 3d 692, 127 Cal. Rptr. 664 (4th Dist. 1976)—Ch. 4-A, §3.3.1 Hiona v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 48 Cal. App. 5th 866, 262 C......
-
Discovery and Admissibility of Police Internal Investigation Reports
...23. 28. Id. at 1333, n.5. 29. In accord, see, M. v. Superior Court, App. 144 Cal.Rptr. 418 (1977); Hinojosa v. Superior Court, App. 127 Cal.Rptr. 664 (1976). 30. Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 525 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1976), on reh. 540 F.2d 837, referring to F.R.E. Rule 401......