People v. Sanchez
94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3156, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 111, 24 Cal. App. 4th 1012 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not violated when the prosecution obtains a defendant's voluntarily created, inculpatory writings from a third party because the element of government compulsion against the defendant is absent. Such a transfer from the court to the prosecutor is also not governed by reciprocal discovery statutes, which apply only to exchanges between the parties.
Facts:
- Arthur Anthony Sanchez and the victim, Rufugia Limón Huerta, were in a strained romantic relationship.
- On March 28, 1992, Huerta went to Sanchez's parents' house to speak with him.
- While she was there, Sanchez strangled Huerta to death with a rope in his bedroom.
- After the killing, Sanchez left a note for his parents, took Huerta's car, and used her ATM card to withdraw $200.
- Approximately one week later, Sanchez's sisters were cleaning his bedroom and found various papers he had written.
- These writings included statements of intent, such as 'if she’s not going to be mine, she won’t be anyone else’s either,' and a detailed murder checklist.
- Sanchez's family members gave these writings to an attorney, who passed them to a public defender investigator, who in turn gave them to Sanchez's defense counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Arthur Anthony Sanchez with the murder of Rufugia Limón Huerta in California Superior Court.
- Sanchez's defense counsel delivered Sanchez's inculpatory writings to the clerk of the court in a sealed envelope.
- The prosecutor filed a motion with the superior court (trial court) to unseal and produce the documents.
- The superior court granted the prosecutor's motion.
- Sanchez, as petitioner, sought a writ of prohibition from the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) to prevent the superior court's order from being executed.
- The Court of Appeal denied Sanchez's petition.
- The superior court judge then personally turned the writings over to the prosecutor.
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 a trial court violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or California's reciprocal discovery statutes by furnishing the defendant's voluntarily created, inculpatory writings to the prosecutor, after defense counsel had delivered those writings to the court under seal?
Opinions:
Majority - Woods, J.
No. The trial court's action of furnishing the writings to the prosecutor did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege or the reciprocal discovery statutes. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires four elements: the information must be (1) incriminating, (2) personal to the defendant, (3) obtained by compulsion, and (4) testimonial in nature. While Sanchez's writings were incriminating, personal, and testimonial, the crucial element of compulsion was absent. Sanchez created the writings voluntarily, and the government obtained them not by compelling Sanchez to produce them, but from a third party (the court). Citing Fisher v. United States, the court affirmed the principle that the Fifth Amendment protects a party from being compelled to produce evidence, but not from its production by other means. Furthermore, the reciprocal discovery statutes do not apply because they govern discovery 'between and among the parties.' The prosecutor's motion was directed at the court, a non-party, and thus fell outside the scope of those statutes.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
Yes. The trial court erred in turning over the defendant's diary to the prosecution. The majority improperly decided the case on an unbriefed issue—the defense counsel's ethical duty to relinquish the evidence—which is procedurally unfair. The reciprocal discovery statutes should have applied, as defense counsel merely lodged the documents with the court for 'safekeeping,' thereby retaining constructive possession. The writings are clearly 'testimonial' evidence because they express the 'contents of an individual's mind' and relate factual assertions. Therefore, they are not discoverable under Penal Code § 1054.4, which creates an exception only for 'nontestimonial' evidence like blood samples or fingerprints. The majority's interpretation effectively nullifies the discovery statute's specific exclusion of a defendant's own statements.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of the Fifth Amendment privilege, reinforcing that its protection is against 'compelled' self-incrimination, not a general right of privacy for incriminating documents. It establishes that when a defendant voluntarily creates evidence and it comes into the possession of a third party (including their own attorney, who then turns it over to the court), the government can obtain it without violating the privilege. The decision also narrowly construes California's reciprocal discovery statutes, holding they do not apply to motions to obtain evidence from third parties like the court. This places a significant ethical burden on defense attorneys who come into possession of physical evidence, as they may be obligated to turn it over without the protections of the discovery process.
