Filed 7/22/10
FOR PUBLICATION
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
ADOLFO DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
B216345
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. VA106301)
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Margaret Miller
Bernal, Judge. Petition granted.
Michael P.
Judge, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Nga TuMendoza and Karen Nash,
Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
Steve
Cooley, District Attorney, Patrick D. Moran, Shirley S. N. Sun and
Roberta Schwartz, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner
Adolfo Davis was charged with the attempted
murder of David Ochoa, who, along with other witnesses, identified Davis
as the man who shot him. A confidential
informant also told police officers that he saw Davis
shoot Ochoa. When Davis
filed a motion to obtain the name of that informant and percipient witness, the
trial court denied it. Davis
petitioned this court for a writ of mandate[1] and argued that disclosure was mandatory. We disagree that disclosure of the
confidential informant's identity was mandatory simply because the informant
was also a percipient witness, but we
agree that an in camera hearing should be held.
We therefore grant the petition for a writ of mandate and order the
trial court to hold an in camera hearing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Factual background.[2]
On June 18, 2008, David Ochoa was
walking with Farid Moran (Farid) and Shearid Moran (Shearid), Anthony Mendoza,
and Cynthia Bravo. They saw a group of
about eight Hispanic men. Ochoa
recognized â€
| Description | Petitioner Adolfo Davis was charged with the attempted murder of David Ochoa, who, along with other witnesses, identified Davis as the man who shot him. A confidential informant also told police officers that he saw Davis shoot Ochoa. When Davis filed a motion to obtain the name of that informant and percipient witness, the trial court denied it. Davis petitioned this court for a writ of mandate[1] and argued that disclosure was mandatory. We disagree that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity was mandatory simply because the informant was also a percipient witness, but we agree that an in camera hearing should be held. We therefore grant the petition for a writ of mandate and order the trial court to hold an in camera hearing. |
| Rating |
