People v. Super. Ct. (Johnson)
Annotate this CaseThe two petitions for writ of mandate/prohibition involved in the present proceeding arose from a felony domestic violence case. At issue was whether, in fulfilling its federal constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution was entitled to direct access to peace officer personnel files. Petitioners argued that such access is barred by Penal Code section 832.7(a). Section 832.7(a) provides, in part, that peace officer personnel records are confidential and may be disclosed in a criminal proceeding only pursuant to a motion under Evidence Code section 1043. The court denied the writ petitions to the extent they challenge the respondent superior court's order requiring the SF Police Department to provide the prosecution access to personnel files to allow for identification of any Brady materials in those files. The court concluded that Section 832.7(a) does not create a barrier between the prosecution and the performance of its duty under Brady. The court's construction of Section 832.7(a) makes it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of barring prosecutorial access to officer personnel files for the purpose of identifying Brady materials therein. The court granted the writ petitions to the extent they challenged the respondent superior court's refusal to consider any request for disclosure of Brady materials pursuant to a motion under Section 1043. The court concluded that, prior to disclosure to the defendant of any Brady material identified by the District Attorney, the prosecution must seek an order authorizing such disclosure under Section 1043.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.