Williams v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 25 May 1978
• Citation: 146 Cal.Rptr. 311,81 Cal.App.3d 330
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Hal W. WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. David CHEREN and George S. Goldberg, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Joseph Edward WOOD, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 51780, Civ. 51786 and Civ. 51787.

Page 311

146 Cal.Rptr. 311

81 Cal.App.3d 330

Hal W. WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.

David CHEREN and George S. Goldberg, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.

Joseph Edward WOOD, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 51780, Civ. 51786 and Civ. 51787.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

May 25, 1978.

As Modified June 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1978.

Hearing Denied July 20, 1978.

Robert D. Fratianne and Herbert F. Blanck, Encino, for petitioner Hal W. Williams, Jr.

Howard E. Beckler, Hollywood, for petitioners David H. Cheren and George S. Goldberg.

Garber & Rudof and Albert C. Garber and Justin M. Groshan, Los Angeles, for petitioner Joseph E. Wood.

John K. Van de Kamp, Dist. Atty. of Los Angeles County, Harry B. Sondheim, Head, App. Div., George M. Palmer and Roderick W. Leonard, Deputy Dist. Attys., for real party in interest.

No appearance for respondents.

ASHBY, Associate Justice.

We issued an alternative writ of prohibition in the within matters at the direction of the Supreme Court. Petitioners are charged with one count of receiving and concealing stolen property (Pen.Code, § 496) and one count of "conspiracy to commit receiving and concealing stolen property" (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. 1, and 496). They seek a writ of prohibition, pursuant to Penal Code section 999a, directing respondent to dismiss the pending indictment.

The facts adduced before the grand jury were as follows: During the period under consideration, petitioners Cheren, Goldberg and Williams were attorneys. Petitioner Wood was a claims manager for the Hartford Insurance Group (hereinafter Hartford). In that capacity he had access to and knowledge of Hartford's investigatory file on a woman named June Walker who sustained catastrophic brain damage in the course of receiving medical treatment at UCLA. ¹ The Walker file was considered confidential. It was compiled with the idea that it would eventually go to defense counsel in the event of a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California. It contained information which counsel for the Regents and Hartford ² considered to be both attorney work product and within the attorney-client privilege.

People's Exhibit 3 before the grand jury consisted of photocopies of documents comprising Hartford's June Walker file which were seized from the law offices of Cheren & Goldberg in February 1975, pursuant to a search warrant. When shown Exhibit 3 at the grand jury proceeding, counsel for the Regents testified, "These are documents from my files as the attorney for the Regents of the University of California, and from the files of the underwriter, the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company."

Mary Ellen Hoover was a secretary in the employ of Cheren & Goldberg. She testified under a grant of immunity. One day in September or October of 1972, Cheren came back from lunch very excited. He called Hoover into his office and closed the door. He told her that he had met with an insurance adjuster whom he knew from the days when Cheren himself had been an adjuster. He identified the man as Eddie Wood. Cheren further told Hoover that he was going to pick up the case of a lifetime, that it was a malpractice case, that it would probably take two or three more meetings with Wood to make the necessary arrangements and that it would cost Cheren a great deal of money.

Shortly thereafter Cheren had another meeting with the adjuster after which Cheren directed Hoover to withdraw $2,500 from his private savings account. When she brought the money to Cheren he told her it was to pay the first installment on the records he was buying in the malpractice case.

Two weeks to a month after this, Cheren brought People's Exhibit 3 into the office. It was covered by a sheet of white paper that had the word "confidential" written across it diagonally. Cheren showed the documents to Hoover, explained that they were the records he had previously talked to her about, that they were very confidential, that he was not supposed to have them, that it was very important that no one know he had them, and that she was to tell no one about them. Cheren told Hoover that she would be the only secretary in the office who would work on the case, and that when the time for trial approached she would be assigned to work on it full time.

After obtaining People's Exhibit 3, Cheren and Goldberg, in Hoover's presence, discussed with each other how they would go about signing up the June Walker case. Eventually a capper whom they frequently employed was sent out to solicit Walker's daughters. A retainer agreement was signed by one of June Walker's daughters on January 10, 1973. A complaint on behalf of June Walker against the Regents and others was filed by Cheren & Goldberg on March 3, 1973.

After Cheren had worked on the case for about four months, he realized that he lacked the experience to handle it alone and Williams was brought in to help. Williams worked as a consultant on an hourly basis for about four to six months, after which he joined the firm of Cheren & Goldberg. Hoover observed People's Exhibit 3 in Williams' possession while he was preparing the Walker case for trial. He worked from the records contained in the exhibit to prepare for taking depositions of various doctors. ³ Hoover, in the course of working with Williams on the file, discussed with him the fact that the documents had come from Hartford and that they were confidential. As the time for trial neared, Cheren, Goldberg and Williams worked on the file all week and for three consecutive weekends discussing procedure and strategy. Hoover was present during these discussions. During this period, People's Exhibit 3 was kept on a bookshelf in Williams office.

Dennis Tonsing was a law clerk in the office of Cheren & Goldberg until about May 3, 1973. He too testified under a grant of immunity. He reviewed People's Exhibit 3 at Cheren's request. Cheren told Tonsing that he had gotten the file from an insurance adjuster or investigator, that it was a confidential file, that it was confidential when Cheren got it and that it remained confidential in his office, that Tonsing was not to indicate where it came from and that it was to be kept separate from the rest of the Walker litigation file.

Trial commenced in the Walker case, but a settlement was reached prior to its conclusion. Under the terms of the settlement, Hartford invested $460,000 in a reversionary trust, the interest on which was to pay for lifetime custodial and medical care for June Walker; $10,000 was paid to Walker's two daughters for release of their future claims for wrongful death; $445,000 was paid to Cheren & Goldberg for attorney's fees and costs. Certain other miscellaneous disbursements were also made by Hartford. Payment to Cheren & Goldberg was by a check dated October 28, 1974, and deposited on October 30, 1974. Sometime thereafter Walker died and the trust principal reverted to Hartford.

Cheren stayed in touch with Wood throughout the processing of the Walker case and informed him of the progress of the case. At some point in time prior to January 1975, Wood moved to Texas. In January 1975, Cheren told Hoover to get him "something like $5000 in small bills" from the bank. She was uncertain as to the precise sum of money. Hoover jokingly inquired if he was being blackmailed and he said that he was. He asked her to address an envelope to Wood in Texas and designate a certain construction company as the return address. Cheren later told Hoover that he had mailed the cash in that envelope. About two weeks later, Cheren told Hoover that he had met with Wood and that he had made Wood sign a certain document promising not to acknowledge his association with them or to ask for more money.

Page 10 of People's Exhibit 1 was a document signed by Wood which stated: "I, Eddie Wood, have agreed to accept $7,000 (seven thousand and no/100) on above date from David Cheren, attorney, for information I allege provided by me regarding a civil action. I acknowledge he denies my allegation and has agreed to pay the above sum under duress threat of false accusations as a harassment on my part. I did not provide him such information and my accusations are false. (P) This above charge may be used by him and this document may be introducted (sic) as evidence against me on behalf of Davis (sic) Cheren in any civil, criminal administrative proceeding against him." Wood's signature was authenticated by two witnesses.

Dennis McReynolds, an investigator with the district attorney's office, participated in the search of the offices of Cheren & Goldberg. The document designated page 10 of People's Exhibit 1 was on top of Cheren's desk. When McReynolds saw it, Cheren grabbed it and said that it was not important. McReynolds saw the name Eddie Wood and seized it. McReynolds had a conversation with Williams regarding People's Exhibit 3. Williams denied having ever seen it. The indictment was returned on February 17, 1977.

With respect to the present proceeding, Cheren & Goldberg raise a single issue: they contend that the information contained in People's Exhibit 3, as distinguished from the paper on which it is printed, could not be the subject of theft and that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the pieces of paper comprising People's Exhibit 3 were ever the property of Hartford. Wood and Williams also raise this contention. In addition, Wood contends that he came into possession of Exhibit 3 lawfully in the course of his employment and therefore did not steal it; ⁴ that a thief cannot receive from himself and is therefore not subject to prosecution under section 496 of the...