Vetter v. Superior Court In and For Sacramento County

• Citation: 10 Cal.Rptr. 890,189 Cal.App.2d 132
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 14 February 1961
• Parties: Richard VETTER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR and COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent. Civ. 10159.

Page 890

10 Cal.Rptr. 890

189 Cal.App.2d 132

Richard VETTER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR and COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent.

Civ. 10159.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Feb. 14, 1961.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1961.

Hearing Denied April 12, 1961.

Robert W. Cole, Public Defender, Kenneth M. Wells, Asst. Public Defender, Sacramento, for petitioner.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier and Raymond Momboisse, Deputy Attys. Gen., and John M. Price, Dist. Atty., Sacramento, for respondent.

SCHOTTKY, Justice.

This is a petition by Richard Vetter for a writ of mandate of compel the respondent superior court to issue its order permitting petitioner to inspect the statements of six witnesses relating to the alleged murder of John Morris who was allegedly slain by petitioner on September 6, 1960, at Folsom Prison.

Vetter was indicted for the crime of murder and for a violation of section 4500 of the Penal Code (assault with a deadly weapon by a convict serving a life term). He was not arraigned until October 7, 1960, or 31 days after the commission of the offense, at which time the public defender was appointed to represent petitioner. On the same day the public defender wrote a letter to the district attorney requesting the names of the witnesses to the alleged homicide. This letter was delivered on October 10, 1960. On October 20th, or 44 days after the crime, the district attorney furnished the public defender with the names of the witnesses to the alleged murder. On the same day the witnesses were interviewed. Six of the witnesses stated that they had been interviewed by officers of Folsom Prison and by a member of the district attorney's staff on September 6, 1960, the same day of the offense, and that they were unable to state whether they could recall and relate all the details of the events they had witnessed in relation to the time, place and circumstances of the death of Morris which were related to the prison officials and the members of the district attorney's staff. They also stated that they were unable to recall the specific questions asked tiem. Thereafter petitioner, through his counsel, made a motion for pretrial inspection, among other things, of the statements of the six witnesses. This motion was supported by affidavits made by the six witnesses in accord with their statements to defense counsel. The motion was denied by the trial court insofar as it related to the statements of the witnesses this petition followed.

The right of a defendant in a criminal case to pretrial inspection of statements made by such defendant and by other witnesses has been the subject of a number of cases in our reviewing courts, among which may be mentioned Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 312 P.2d 698; Cash v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 72, 346 P.2d 407; Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 330 P.2d 773; Funk v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 423, 424, 340 P.2d 593; People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770, 3 Cal.Rptr. 148; Norton v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.2d 133, 136, 343 P.2d 139; Schindler v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.2d 513, 327 P.2d 68, and Walker v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 139-141, 317 P.2d 130. It is settled that in any case such pretrial inspection may be granted, and whether it will be granted in any case depends largely upon the facts of such case and generally rests within the sound discretion of the court to which the motion is addressed.

In the recent case of Cash v. Superior Court, supra, the court said at pages 74-76 of 53 Cal.2d, at page 408 of 346 P.2d:

'Several recent decisions have involved production, prior to trial, of written statements or recordings in the possession of the People. Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 709, 312 P.2d 698, held that the accused had a right to obtain written statements made in the office of the chief of police after the commission of the crime. Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 93, 330 P.2d 773, compelled production of tape recordings of the defendant's statements ot the police during interrogation and also of recordings which officers made of their conversation with the alleged victim and played to the defendant while they were questioning him. In Funk v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 423, 340 P.2d 593, the People were required to produce written statements of prosecution witnesses relating to the matters covered in their testimony at the preliminary hearing.

'The basis for requiring pre-trial production of material in the hands of the prosecution is the fundamental principle that an accused is entitled to a fair trial. In Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 706 et seq. , it was noted that an accused was denied production at early common law because he might fabricate evidence to meet the state's case and because the prosecution did not have a reciprocal right in view of the privilege against self-incrimination. In granting relief, however, this court pointed out that to deny production on the ground that an imbalance would be created between the advantage of prosecution and defense would be to lose sight of the purpose of a trial, which is the ascertainment of the truth; that nondisclosure partakes of the nature of a game; and that the state is so solicitous of according a defendant a fair trial that it will not hinder him in the preparation of his defense by depriving him of competent material and relevant evidence. In other words, although there is a possibility that a defendant may be acting in bad faith and may be seeking merely to acquire advance knowledge of the details of the prosecution's case with a view to shaping his defense accordingly, such a possibility is subordinate in importance to the danger of convicting the innocent and does not warrant denying a request for production were there is a sufficient showing that the request should be granted in the interests of a fair trial. In the present case, as we shall see, there is such a showing.

* * *

* * *

'The importance to petitioner of knowing the details of the conversations must be considered in connection with his inability to remember what was said. His lack of recollection is alleged by affidavit, as in Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 312 P.2d 698, and Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 330 P.2d 773, and this allegation, at least insofar as it relates to the particulars of what was said, is strongly supported by the facts that the first conversation alone lasted more than an hour and that the affidavit was not made until several weeks later. There is nothing to show that petitioner had a greater than average capacity to absorb and retain what was said or that there is any other justification for expecting him to recall the conversations in the detail necessary for the preparation of his defense.'

We are convinced that the denial by the court of the right of petitioner to pretrial inspection of the requested statements and documents was an abuse of discretion. It is apparent from the record that immediately following the commission of the alleged crime, and on the same day, six fellow prisoners, who were in the immediate vicinity, were interrogated by the prosecuting attorney and the prison officials and that all six made statements which were either recorded on tape or taken down in shorthand. It is not disputed that these statements are in the possession of the district attorney. As hereinbefore set forth, when these six persons were interviewed by petitioner's counsel some 44 days later they informed counsel that they had made statements but could not recall in detail what questions had been asked them, and that they were unable to state whether they had recalled and related to defense counsel all of the details of the events they had witnessed and which they had related to the prison officials and the prosecuting attorney, Petitioner thereupon made a motion in the trial court for the right of pretrial...