People v. Lepe
| Decision Date | 23 January 1985 |
| Citation | 164 Cal.App.3d 685,211 Cal.Rptr. 432 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Carlos LEPE, Defendant and Respondent. D001511. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Keith I. Motley and Robert B. Shaw, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and appellant.
Appellate Defenders, Inc. and Howard C. Cohen, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and respondent.
Before assuming the office of district attorney for Imperial County, Thomas W. Storey defended Carlos Lepe in two criminal cases. The first charged assault on Betty Araujo. Joe Luis Herrera and Jesse Daniel Rodriguez were witnesses. The second charged intimidation of Herrera and Rodriguez, witnesses in the first case. Later, as district attorney, acting through an assistant district attorney, Storey signed and filed an information charging Lepe with assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, on Herrera and Rodriguez and infliction of great bodily injury on Herrera. 1
Lepe's motion to recuse the entire Imperial County District Attorney's office was granted. The People appeal, contending abuse of discretion.
Penal Code section 1424 2 requires a motion to disqualify a district attorney must set forth a statement of facts relevant to the claimed disqualification with points and authorities and "... the motion shall not be granted unless it is shown by the evidence that a conflict of interest exists such as would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial."
The People say Lepe did not produce any evidence bearing on a conflict of interest such as to affect Lepe's right to a fair trial. 3
It is true Lepe did not produce any witnesses and did not offer any documentary evidence. His counsel said, "... I will be requesting ..." an in camera hearing outside the presence of the prosecution in which Lepe would testify concerning Storey's representation in his earlier trials involving Herrera and Rodriguez. Lepe's testimony would also concern his apparent plea bargain in the intimidation case.
His testimony further would be the basis to bar the use of that prior conviction which resulted in a prison term on the grounds of inadequate representation by Storey. The People objected to the in camera hearing, Lepe's lawyer did not formally make the in camera hearing motion and the court did not hold the hearing.
The issue on the record thus emerges: Is there a conflict of interest such as to make it unlikely Lepe would receive a fair trial at the hands of a prosecutor, his former lawyer who defended him in two earlier cases involving the persons who now are the victims here. In deciding the issue we keep in mind Lepe's contentions alluded to by his lawyer concerning validity of his plea in the witness intimidation case, the adequacy of Storey's representation and his intention to call Storey as a witness. We judicially notice proper preparation of a defense to a criminal charge mandates investigation of the charged offense, the victims and the other witnesses and their credibility, the relationship of the defendant to the victim and myriad other factors. Necessarily, that preparation includes attorney-client communications and Lepe's resultant privilege Storey not disclose their content. The issue admits but one answer--the office of the district attorney must be recused.
Storey is a member of the State Bar. A member shall not accept employment adverse to a former client without the client's informed consent relating to a matter in reference to which he has obtained confidential information by reason of or in the course of his employment by the former client (rule 4-101, Rules of Prof. Conduct). It is improper for a district attorney to prosecute a former client without that client's consent for a crime relating to a matter in reference to which he has obtained confidential information by reason of or in the course of his employment by the former client (People v. Superior Court, (Greer) (1977) 19 Cal.3d 255, 261, 137 Cal.Rptr. 476, 561 P.2d 1164). While Lepe failed to adduce any evidence Storey obtained confidential information while defending the two earlier cases, we accept the realities of a criminal defense. Lepe had to relate to Storey the circumstances of the first assault witnessed by Herrera and Rodriguez and his later intimidation of those witnesses. That information necessarily includes the basis for Lepe's hostility toward the now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montiel v. Chappell
...one of the prosecutors was shot at by the defendant, and talked about the incident with over half of his co-workers); People v. Lepe, 164 Cal. App. 3d 685, 689 (1985) (entire District Attorney's office disqualified where District Attorney himself had previously represented the defendant and......
-
In re CHARLISSE C.
...in the office handled cases against his former clients. ( Id. at pp. 896-897, 144 Cal.Rptr. 34.) 9 Similarly, in People v. Lepe (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 685, 689, 211 Cal.Rptr. 432, where an attorney representing criminal defendants became the District Attorney for Imperial County, the Court o......
-
City & County of S.F. v. Cobra Solutions
...criminal cases premised on a head of office attorney's personal conflict of interest identify similar concerns. In People v. Lepe (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 685, 211 Cal.Rptr. 432, the district attorney, Thomas Storey, had represented the defendant in two related criminal cases. The defense atto......
-
Spaccia v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.
...Cal.App.4th 767, 776, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 886;People v. Merritt (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1581, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 177;People v. Lepe (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 685, 687, 211 Cal.Rptr. 432.) As our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, “the Legislature superseded the Greer standard by enacting [Penal Code......