In June 2010, the Monterey County District Attorney prosecuted Juan Nuno for multiple counts of willful, deliberate and premeditated murder, as well as other crimes. In September 2010, the trial court held a joint preliminary hearing. The district attorney presented the testimony of four police officers, including King City Police Department Officers Abraham Aguayo and Jesus Yanez. The Court held Nuno to answer on 22 charged counts, as well as an uncharged offense, and enhancement allegations. Nuno then signed a plea agreement that resulted in a 30-year prison sentence.
In February 2022, Nuno filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6, which applies in various circumstances including when the malice element of felony murder is implied because of a person’s participation in a crime. In June 2022, the trial court found that Nuno had made a prima facie case for relief and ordered an evidentiary hearing.
In August 2022, Nuno filed a motion for discovery of the personnel records of Officers Aguayo and Yanez. Nuno cited Brady, Pitchess, Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1046, and state and federal constitutional due process protections in support of his discovery motion. Nuno asserted he met the good cause requirements of Pitchess and the materiality standards of Brady, and that the officers’ credibility would be the main factors in determining whether Nuno committed attempted murder and the various enhancements. Nuno also sought “evidence of the officers’ custom and habit of falsifying police reports” and attached “media accounts detailing the officers’ misbehavior.”
The City and Department filed an opposition. They argued the discovery motion failed to: demonstrate good cause; show a plausible factual foundation for the release of the confidential personnel records; and was overbroad. At the hearing, the superior court explained that it would conduct an in-camera hearing to review all potentially relevant documents that correspond to the particular requests in the Pitchess motion. Neither the court nor the parties addressed the Brady component of the motion. After the in-camera hearing, the court found some of the personnel information relevant and ordered that it be disclosed to defense counsel.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on Nuno’s section 1172.6 claim and denied the petition. In ruling on Nuno’s discovery motion, the trial court ordered disclosure of only complainant and witness names and contact information related to two incidents involving Officer Aguayo, as well as Officer Yanez’s dates of employment.
Nuno appealed; he requested the California Court of Appeal to review the trial court’s application of Pitchess standards to the discovery motion. The Court requested supplemental briefing on whether the trial court’s review should also encompass Brady principles, which require the disclosure of exculpatory evidence.
The Court outlined the relevant principles concerning section 1172.6, Pitchess, and Brady. The Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Pitchess principles in ordering the disclosure of only limited information regarding the officers.
The Court then addressed the novel issue of whether disclosure of information concerning the officers may have been required under Brady principles in advance of the section 1172.6 hearing. The Court ruled that a person seeking relief under section 1172.6 may obtain peace officer personnel information under Brady principles through Pitchess procedures in advance of a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing.
The Court reasoned that a person who seeks relief under section 1172.6 has previously been convicted at a presumptively fair trial proceeding. However, if the trial court issues an order to show cause (and orders an evidentiary hearing on a section 1172.6 petition), the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing resembles a criminal trial, and disclosing Brady material in connection with a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing promotes the search for truth.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not clearly consider Brady principles when ruling on the discovery motion. The Court conditionally reversed the trial court’s order denying the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings to ensure compliance with Brady requirements.
People v. Nuno, 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 650 (10/17/2024).