Littlefield, In re

• Decision Date: 20 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. S025426,S025426
• Citation: 851 P.2d 42,5 Cal.4th 122,19 Cal.Rptr.2d 248
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 851 P.2d 42 In re Wilbur F. LITTLEFIELD on Habeas Corpus.

Page 248

19 Cal.Rptr.2d 248

5 Cal.4th 122, 851 P.2d 42

In re Wilbur F. LITTLEFIELD on Habeas Corpus.

No. S025426.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

May 20, 1993.

Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, in pro. per., Laurence M. Sarnoff, Stuart Alan Chapman and Albert J. Menaster (argued) Deputy Public Defenders, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

Chase, Rotchford, Drukker & Bogust, John A. Daly, Joan E. Hewitt and Robert W. Carney (argued), Los Angeles, for respondent Superior Court.

Ira Reiner and Gil Garcetti, Dist. Attys., Donald J. Kaplan, Diana L. Summerhayes and Brentford J. Ferreira (argued), Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for respondent People.

GEORGE, Justice.

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 (Pen.Code, § 1054 et seq.), ¹ the constitutionality of which we upheld in Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, 285 Cal.Rptr. 231, 815 P.2d 304. The principal issue for our determination is whether section 1054.3 (setting forth the duty of disclosure on the part of the defense) and section 1054.5 (providing for enforcement of the disclosure requirements) authorize a trial court to impose the sanction of contempt when defense counsel refuses to comply with an order to acquire and disclose to the prosecution the address of a person whom the defense intends to call as a witness at trial. We conclude the applicable discovery statutes authorize both an order to obtain that address, if reasonably accessible, and a contempt sanction for refusal to obey that order.

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: Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence); Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b) (driving at or above the level of .08 percent blood alcohol); and Vehicle Code section 12500, subdivision (a) (driving unlicensed). Following these allegations, the complaint set forth the following statement: "Pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.5(b), the People are hereby informally requesting that defense counsel provide discovery to the People as required by Penal Code section 1054.3."

On that same day defendant Montiel, represented by Deputy Public Defender Stuart A. Chapman, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On June 12, 1991, the parties appeared in court for jury trial, and the case was trailed to June 17, 1991. During the June 12 proceedings, Chapman requested that a defense witness, Sandra Pavon, who was present in court, be ordered to return on June 17. Chapman stated that the witness had provided him with her telephone number and that she could be placed "on call." When the trial court did so, the prosecution orally moved "for discovery of any statements of the defense witness that [the defense] intend[s] to use." The court replied, "I will allow all discovery to be handled informally between counsel. The Court does not involve itself in discovery matters unless there is a failure to comply."

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, 285 Cal.Rptr. 231, 815 P.2d 304, 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 section 1054.5 prevailed over the local rule cited by the defense. Also rejecting the constitutional arguments and the other grounds asserted by the defense in opposition to the request for discovery, the court ordered the defense to comply forthwith.

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 section 1054.5 for noncompliance with a discovery order, would be appropriate. That following day (June 18), Chapman requested that the court refrain from imposing any sanction that would prejudice the defendant. The court responded that, if it were to abide by Chapman's request, it would be left with no alternative but to consider the sanction of holding the public defender in contempt. A contempt hearing was set for June 20, 1991.

On that date, petitioner Wilbur F. Littlefield appeared with his counsel, Albert J. Menaster, a deputy in the public defender's office. Menaster, diverging somewhat from the arguments presented by Chapman, maintained that the public defender simply had nothing to disclose. Menaster acknowledged that under section 1054.3, the prosecution was entitled to the names, addresses, and written or recorded statements of any witnesses the defense intended to call at trial. He represented there was only one person, Sandra Pavon, whom the defense possibly would call as a witness at trial, and inasmuch as the trial court had ordered Pavon to return to court, the prosecution had notice of her identity. He further represented that Chapman deliberately had not asked this witness for her address, fearing she would be intimidated by the prospect of being contacted by the police department or the district attorney's office. Menaster further represented that Pavon had given Chapman her telephone number but not her address, that the public defender's office did not have her address, that she had given that office an oral statement, but there was no written or recorded statement. Accordingly, argued Menaster, there was no address or written or recorded statement of this potential defense witness that was in the possession of the public defender's office and subject to disclosure to the prosecution pursuant to section 1054.3. Menaster also argued that, at this point in time, the defense had not yet determined whether to call Ms. Pavon as a witness at trial.

The trial court, while acknowledging that "[defense counsel] don't have an 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.

The trial proceeded on June 27. Ms. Pavon was called as a witness and testified on behalf of the defense. ⁴ The jury found defendant not guilty on all charges.

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 ...