California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
JAYSON KEEFE,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondent;
CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
B192774
(Super. Ct. No. BA302911)
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate. Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Petition granted.
Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Robert Johnson and Mark Havis, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent or Real Party in Interest.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, and Kim Rodgers Westhoff, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest City of Los Angeles Police Department.
INTRODUCTION
Jayson Keefe is a criminal defendant charged with the sale of cocaine base. He moved for discovery under Evidence Code section 1043 from the personnel files of two police officers involved in his arrest and in preparing their arrest report.[1] Keefe's basic contention was that the officers lied in their report. He challenged the officers' account of the events described in report and gave his own version of what happened, thereby making the officers' truthfulness material to the issues in the case. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and grant his petition for a writ of mandate.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
According to the police report, two plain clothes Los Angeles Police Department officers saw Keefe sitting on a short wall in the area of San Julian and 6th Street. A female, Morrison, went up to Keefe and gave him a five dollar bill, while at the same time receiving white solid rocks from Keefe. After the female left Keefe, they were both arrested. The female was found with white solid rocks of cocaine base. All Keefe had in his possession was the five dollar bill.
Keefe was charged with sale of cocaine base and later moved for discovery under section 1034 from the personnel files of the two officers who recorded their observations in the police report--Officers Brown and Reyes. In short, Keefe claimed the officers lied in their report regarding their observations, fabricated information, and Officer Reyes lied in his preliminary hearing testimony. Keefe claimed he was at the location, which is known as â€
Description
A criminal law decision regarding the sale of cocaine base. Appellant moved for discovery under Evidence Code section 1043 from the personnel files of two police officers involved in his arrest and in preparing their arrest report. Appellant's basic contention was that the officers lied in their report. Appellant challenged the officers' account of the events described in report and gave his own version of what happened, thereby making the officers' truthfulness material to the issues in the case. Court conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and grant his petition for a writ of mandate.
