People v. Moore, Cr. 8076

Citation57 Cal.App.3d 437,129 Cal.Rptr. 279
Decision Date19 April 1976
Docket NumberCr. 8076
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Harold Richard MOORE, Defendant and Respondent.

Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., of San Diego County, Terry J. Knoepp and F. Dale Marriott, Deputy Dist. Attys., for plaintiff and appellant.

William B. Saunders, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and respondent.

GERALD BROWN, Presiding Justice.

The People appeal a judgment following an order granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Harold Richard Moore, defendant.

As required we recite the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party below.

In March 1974 Moore was arrested on a minor drug charge. A beautiful investigator of the district attorney's investigation unit, Ms. Casey, contacted him and solicited his cooperation in investigating organized crime. Moore declined. Ms. Casey said to Moore as she left, 'Any time you want to talk to me, call me.' The charges were dismissed.

In May 1974 Moore was again arrested. A parole hold was lodged against him. He was arraigned on charges of burglary (Pen.Code § 459), grand theft (Pen.Code § 487(1)), and receiving stolen property (Pen.Code § 496(1)). Attorney Robert J. Nareau was appointed as Moore's counsel. In early June 1974, while in custody, Moore sought to telephone Ms. Casey in the district attorney's office. Instead, he reached Mr. Cameron, who with another investigator, immediately visited him in jail. Over a period of time, and with the approval of attorneys in the district attorney's office, the investigators and Moore agreed Moore would work undercover in the area of organized crime and would testify for the prosecution in an unrelated armed robbery case (People v. Gunsolus, San Diego County Superior Court No. CR--32109). In return, Moore was to be released from custody and the fact of his cooperation would be conveyed to the sentencing judge in his case. Moore was also led to believe if his efforts culminated in the arrest and conviction of Joe Matranga, his case would be dismissed, his parole would be terminated, he would be relocated, and be given protection, a new identity, and $5,000--$10,000. Nareau was unaware of any of these activities and arrangements.

Moore was explicitly instructed not to inform his attorney about his dealings with the district attorney's office. One of the investigators falsely told Moore his attorney was inadequate and had been disbarred. More meetings were held, and the district attorney obtained a reduction in bail from $10,000 to $1,500. On August 14, 1974 Moore was released from custody. When told later, Nareau thought Moore had put up the $10,000 bail.

On August 20 and 21, 1974, Moore testified for the prosecution in People v. Gunsolus. Between August 21 and October 5, 1974, Moore did extensive undercover work, for which the district attorney's office furnished him weapons, 1 bugging devices and expense money. He was told not to appear for his trial on September 16, and to leave a false telephone number with his attorney. During this period Nareau attempted to contact Moore but was unable to reach him at the number he had been given. Moore's trial was continued until September 18 when it was further continued to December 2 on motion of the People.

On September 18 Moore testified for the prosecution in the murder trial of People v. Caldwell, San Diego County Superior Court No. CR--31642. Afterward he was beaten severely by four men, and on another occasion was fired at with a shotgun. Two 'contracts' were placed on his life.

On October 9, 1974 Moore was arrested for a parole violation and was placed in solitary confinement at the city jail. Nareau was not notified. On October 24, 1974 Moore was not released to attend his trial readiness conference. Nareau thought he had willfully failed to appear and the court issued a bench warrant.

On December 2, 1974 trial was set for December 18, 1974, but at the readiness conference a trial date of February 6, 1975 was set on Moore's motion, in order to allow his newly appointed counsel time to prepare. (Nareau had been replaced because of illness.) On January 23, 1975 Moore noticed a motion to dismiss the action. The motion was granted on the grands he was denied due process of law and effective aid of counsel.

The People claim Moore was not denied aid of counsel at a critical stage of criminal proceedings because no plea bargain was achieved, and their use of Moore was for purposes unrelated to his own case. The People overlook the offers and assurances the district attorney's office gave Moore as to his own case.

During the entire period of his activities with the district attorney, Moore was entitled to the services of his appointed counsel (Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 57, 53 S.Ct. 55, 59--60, 77 L.Ed. 158). The district attorney's office made no effort to inform Nareau of its arrangements with Moore and debased the attorney-client relationship by disparaging the professional capabilities of Nareau and by encouraging Moore to tell him nothing of their dealings. Such conduct violates Standard 4.1(b) of American Bar Association Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, which provides:

'It is unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor to engage in plea discussions directly with an accused who is represented by counsel, except with counsel's approval.'

Under active instigation to operate without his appointed counsel, and imbued with the false impression he would gain freedom, Moore...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Barber v. Municipal Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 10, 1979
    ...of evidence, was the appropriate remedy where the prosecution interfered in the attorney-client relationship. (People v. Moore, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 437, 129 Cal.Rptr. 279.) 17 Requiring such a re-disclosure would also be in direct violation of Evidence Code, section 915, which provides in ......
  • Harris v. Vasquez, 90-55402
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 15, 1991
    ...in the District Attorney's Office in 1974 which deprived a criminal defendant of his right to counsel, see People v. Moore, 57 Cal.App.3d 437, 129 Cal.Rptr. 279 (1976). Harris provides no indication that the conduct described in these cases was connected to the alleged misconduct in his cas......
  • Harris v. Vasquez
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 15, 1991
    ...in the District Attorney's Office in 1974 which deprived a criminal defendant of his right to counsel, see People v. Moore, 57 Cal.App.3d 437, 129 Cal.Rptr. 279 (1976). Harris provides no indication that the conduct described in these cases was connected to the alleged misconduct in his cas......
  • People v. Uribe, H035320.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 2011
    ...(1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1252, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 ( Morrow ); Boulas, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d 422, 233 Cal.Rptr. 487; People v. Moore (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 437, 129 Cal.Rptr. 279 ( Moore ).) The appellate court in each of the cases cited Rochin, supra, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205. ( Morrow, at p. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT