P. v. Adams
Filed 9/2/11 P. v. Adams CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JARED LACEY ADAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | A125674 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 159035A) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 15, 2011, be modified as follows:
1. On page 15, the first full paragraph under is modified to read as follows:
“[R]aw written notes of witness interviews, other than attorney work product, are ‘statements’ as defined in sections 1054.3, subdivision (a), and 1054.1, subdivision (f), and thus must be disclosed by both sides.” (Thompson v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 480, 485.) Similarly, oral statements by witnesses must be disclosed. (Roland v. Superior Ct. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 154, 157-158.) Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to provide the defense with her notes of interviews with Clifford, delaying disclosure until just before cross-examination of Clifford, and redacting the claimed work-product. Defendant also claims, because Clifford was a defendant as well as a witness, the prosecutor was required under section 1054.1, subdivision (b) to disclose Clifford’s oral statements that were neither written nor recorded but failed to do so.
2. On page 14, the first sentence of the second full paragraph should be modified to read as follows:
The record does not support these conditions.
3. On pages 14-15, the last sentence of the third paragraph is modified to read as follows:
4. Defense counsel ultimately did not ask for more time (the court recessed overnight before the cross-examination of Clifford), never suggested the prosecution failed to disclose any unrecorded oral statements by Clifford, never suggested the prosecutor had redacted material that was not work-product, and very effectively cross-examined Clifford.[9]
5. There is no change in footnote 9.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
Dated:
_______________________
Marchiano, P. J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
