People v. Norman
1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 2427, 177 Cal. App. 2d 59, 1 Cal. Rptr. 699 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant's right to compel the production of evidence from the prosecution must be exercised before or during the trial. A defendant who fails to make a timely request waives this right and cannot compel production after an unfavorable verdict has been rendered.
Facts:
- On the evening of December 20, 1956, defendant forced his way into the apartment of Mrs. Scott, who was home alone with her infant child.
- At gunpoint, defendant threatened to kill Mrs. Scott and her baby.
- Defendant then sexually assaulted Mrs. Scott.
- Following the assault, defendant asked Mrs. Scott if she had any money and said he wanted everything she had.
- Defendant ordered Mrs. Scott at gunpoint to walk approximately 40 feet through a hall into her bedroom to retrieve her purse.
- Once in the bedroom, Mrs. Scott gave defendant $8.00 from her purse.
- Defendant then forced Mrs. Scott to remove her engagement and wedding rings and took them from her.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged defendant by information in a state trial court with numerous felonies, including kidnaping for the purpose of robbery, rape, and robbery.
- A jury found the defendant guilty on most counts, including first-degree robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery with bodily harm.
- After the jury returned its verdicts, defendant's new counsel filed a motion for a new trial.
- Before the hearing on the new trial motion, defendant filed motions to compel the prosecution to produce various documents, including police reports and hospital records.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motions for production of documents.
- Subsequently, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial and entered a judgment of conviction.
- Defendant appealed the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does denying a defendant's post-verdict motion to compel the production of prosecution documents violate due process when the defendant failed to request those documents at any point before or during the trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Vallée, J.
No, the denial of a post-verdict discovery motion does not violate due process where the defendant failed to timely request the materials. The right to compel production of evidence from the prosecution is based on the fundamental principle that an accused is entitled to a fair trial, and its value lies in enabling the defendant to prepare for and impeach testimony at trial. A defendant who is aware of the existence of documents during trial but takes no action to compel their production may not gamble on a favorable verdict and then seek the documents after losing. By failing to make a timely motion, the defendant waives the right to compel production, similar to how other fundamental rights, such as the right to a jury trial or to confront witnesses, can be waived. The court also held that moving the victim approximately 40 feet within her own apartment at gunpoint to commit robbery constituted sufficient 'asportation' to support a conviction for kidnaping for the purpose of robbery under Penal Code § 209, reaffirming the precedent set in People v. Wein.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that criminal discovery is a procedural tool intended for the pre-trial and trial phases, not a post-conviction remedy. It firmly establishes the doctrine of waiver for discovery rights, placing a clear burden on defense counsel to act with diligence in seeking materials from the prosecution. By preventing defendants from using post-verdict discovery motions as a method to search for grounds for a new trial, the ruling reinforces the finality of jury verdicts. Future defense attorneys are on notice that they cannot delay discovery requests and must pursue them before or during trial, or risk forfeiting the right entirely.
