Schindler v. Superior Court In and For Madera County
| Decision Date | 20 June 1958 |
| Citation | 327 P.2d 68,161 Cal.App.2d 513 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Opal Coewith SCHINDLER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MADERA, Respondent. Claude William SCHINDLER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MADERA, Respondent. Civ. 9479, 9481. |
Roy E. Wolfe, Madera, for Opal Schindler.
Mayes & Courtney, Merced, for Claude Schindler.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier and Lloyd Hinkelman, Deputies Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioners in each of the above-entitled matters apply for writs of mandate to compel the respondent court to order the pretrial inspection of certain statements made by each to the district attorney or his representatives, also of certain medical specimens, and of the reports made by the autopsy surgeon concerning his findings as the result of an autopsy performed on the body of their deceased daughter. They also seek authorization to engage a pathologist of their own choice at county expense and to have the body of the child exhumed for further autopsy examination.
The petitioners are husband and wife and by information have been jointly charged with the murder of their four-year-old daughter, Sandra. As the facts and the law applicable in each matter are practically the same and are contemporaneously before this court, the two petitions have been consolidated for the purpose of this opinion.
The petitioner sought an order from the respondent court to permit her or her attorney to examine any statements made by her to the district attorney or his representatives with respect to the death of her daughter, Sandra Marie Schindler, on the ground that she cannot remember her previous statements because of emotional disturbance at the time of the death of the child. Her counsel, although he is not representing petitioner's husband, at the same time demanded that the district attorney also permit him to examine the statements made by petitioner's husband concerning the death of said child, based upon petitioner's allegations on information and belief that such statements implicated the petitioner, that they were untrue, and that petitioner needed the statements to prepare for trial for the purpose of impeachment. The district attorney refused both demands. She also petitioned the respondent court for authorization to engage the services of a pathologist at county expense to examine the medical material concerning the death of said child. (Respecting this latter matter, the court '* * * ordered that the post-mortem doctor may be employed as a witness at this trial at the expense of the County of Madera provided such charge is legal.')
Counsel for petitioner further alleges that when he attempted to discuss the pathological findings with the autopsy surgeon he was informed by said autopsy surgeon that the district attorney had instructed him (the autopsy surgeon) not to discuss such evidence with petitioner or her counsel.
It was also alleged that counsel for petitioner filed a motion for a court order permitting him to engage the services of a pathologist to examine the body of the child and for an order that the body of the child be exhumed for the purpose of permitting said pathologist to perform an autopsy. All of said motions were supported by affidavits, and though opposed by the district attorney, no counter-affidavits were filed.
Counsel for the petitioner alleges that he demanded that the district attorney permit him to examine the petitioner's statements given to the district attorney or his representatives with respect to the death of his daughter, Sandra Marie Schindler. These statements were demanded because petitioner could not remember what statements were made due to his emotional disturbance at the time of the death of the child. Counsel for petitioner at the same time demanded that the district attorney also permit him to examine the statements made by Opal Coewith Schindler based upon petitioner's allegations on information and belief that such statements implicated petitioner, that they were untrue, and that he could not impeach them at the trial unless he knew their contents. The district attorney refused both demands. Counsel further alleges that when he attempted to discuss pathological findings with the autopsy surgeon, he was informed by said autopsy surgeon that he could not do so unless and until he was so instructed by the district attorney.
It is also alleged that he moved the respondent court for an order permitting him to join in the motions made by Opal Coewith Schindler for an examination of the statements made by each of them to the prosecution or its representatives and for a court order for authorization to incur necessary expenses in engaging the services of a pathologist, which costs could be charged to the county. Both of said motions were supported by the affidavit and though opposed by the district attorney, no counter-affidavits were filed. All of said motions were denied.
Since no counter-affidavits were filed, factually the matters averred in each petition were admitted. Walker v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 136, 317 P.2d 130.
We have concluded that both petitioners have made out a case entitling each to mandamus to compel the pretrial inspection of his or her own statements made to the district attorney and his representatives.
In Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 312 P.2d 698, it was said:
Upon the above facts, the court issued a writ of mandamus requiring the respondent court to set aside its order denying the petitioner an inspection of the documents in question and ordered that it issue an appropriate order of inspection with the right to take copies as sought.
In the instant cases, the facts upon which petitioners base their right to a pretrial inspection of the statements they made to the district attorney or his representatives are as persuasive as the facts in the Powell case. Here it is alleged that the demand was made upon the district attorney to examine the petitioners' statements given to him or his representatives with respect to the death of their child. The statements were demanded because the petitioners could not remember what statements were made and because of his or her emotional disturbance at the time of the death of the child. It further appears that these statements were taken at the time when the petitioners were without the benefit of counsel; that knowledge of the contents of said statements is necessary in order that they may prepare their respective defenses to the charge of murder. Under such circumstances, we believe that each petitioner is entitled to inspect and make copies of his or her own statements made to the district attorney or his representatives.
As was held in the Powell case, '* * * to deny inspection of defendant's statements would likewise be to loss sight of the objective of ascertainment of the facts, and would be out of harmony with the policy of this state that the goal of criminal prosecutions is not to secure a conviction in every case by any expedient means, however, odious, but rather, only through establishing the truth upon a public trial fair to defendant and the state alike. In the recent case of Dowell v. Superior Court (1956), 47 Cal.2d 483, 304 P.2d 1009, this court granted mandamus to compel inspection prior to trial of a personal injury action,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Garner
...407 et seq.; cf. Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 93(1), 330 P.2d 773.) Any inference to the contrary in Schindler v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.2d 513, 327 P.2d 68 is The district attorney, however, was not required to seek out defendant's trial counsel and present the statements to......
-
People v. Wardlow
...An autopsy report is a public record. (People v. Williams (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 364, 390, 345 P.2d 47; Schindler v. Superior Court (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 513, 520, 327 P.2d 68, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Garner (1961) 57 Cal.2d 135, 142, 18 Cal.Rptr. 40, 367 P.2d 680.) As such......
-
People v. D'Andrea
...P.2d 698; Cordry v. Superior Court In and For Santa Clara County, 161 Cal.App.2d 267, 326 P.2d 222; Schindler v. Superior Court in and For County of Madera, 161 Cal.App.2d 513, 327 P.2d 68. Louisiana (State v. Dorsey, supra, 207 La. 928, 22 So.2d 273; State v. Alleman, 218 La. 821, 51 So.2d......
-
People v. Demes
...is a record that the coroner is required to keep (Govt.Code, § 27491) and is, therefore, a public record. (Schindler v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.2d 513, 520, 327 P.2d 68.) Section 1920, Code of Civil Procedure, provides that entries in public or other official books or records, made in t......
-
Table of cases
...733, §9:118 Schaffer v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1235, §5:35 Schindler v. Superior Court of Madera County (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 513, §5:61 Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, §§7:66.1, 7:66.7, 7:67.1, 7:67, 11:142.4.4, 11:142.4.9(a), Appendix E Schneckloth v. Bustamont......
-
Discovery
...to blood, urine or breath samples. DISCOVERY 5-37 Discovery §5:61 [PC §1054.1(c); Schindler v. Superior Court of Madera County (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 513; Norton v. Superior Court (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 133; People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641; Prince v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1......