WOODLAND, CA – Yolo County Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Wolk, after spirited debate from the defense and prosecution, allowed late discovery of evidence, including body cam footage and a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), submitted by Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey here Monday.
Deputy Public Defender Jailene Gutierrez argued the late discovery, which also included uncharged allegations, was prejudicial, irrelevant, and violated California discovery law.
According to court records, the accused was charged with a misdemeanor for the violation of a protective order.
DPD Gutierrez motioned for the omission of body cam footage that had video evidence of the accused speaking to law enforcement, insisting it was never discovered to her by the prosecution.
DDA Harvey, however, noted that the evidence featured two witnesses speaking to law enforcement and said this evidence was separate from the police report, was not “part of the system,” and therefore not discovered to DPD Gutierrez.
DPD Gutierrez requested there be no mention of the body cam evidence at trial, because “there is a report that an officer went to speak to (the accused)” and that there was “knowledge something existed,” so she can’t find a reason why it was not discovered to her.
Based on California discovery law, Judge Wolk granted PD Gutierrez the right to exclude the body cam footage, and ordered that “neither party use lack of evidence for their argument.”
Further, DPD Gutierrez objected to the inclusion of the DVRO on the basis of “relevance, prejudice, and late discovery,” in addition to not having received a copy of the DVRO prior to Saturday evening.
DDA Harvey stated that she had assumed DPD Gutierrez already had access to the DVRO information, but to ensure she received it, DDA Harvey emailed her on Saturday evening. She explained she believed this would be the best course of action to confirm DPD Gutierrez had all the necessary details regarding the DVRO.
DPD Gutierrez charged that even though DDA Harvey sent her the information on the DVRO, she did not have access to the narrative regarding the DVRO.
From this, DPD Gutierrez requested this late discovery of information be excluded. DDA Harvey suggested alternative options to exclusion, stating the evidence to be important information regarding the case against the accused.
DDA Harvey suggested DPD Gutierrez take more time to engage with the new information and form another argument—asking for a continuance for this case.
DPD Gutierrez made the court aware that she does have an argument that would render the information useless, however the principle of late discovery does offer the option to exclude the information, and that is what she asked of the court.§
Judge Wolk reiterated the charges called into question by DDA Harvey by suggesting “bringing in the restraining order itself in order to prove the elements of this charge (violation of protective order), but also seeking to bring in facts of the underlying offense under 1109 to show a propensity?”
In doing so, DDA Harvey responded by asking if the court would allow for the protective order itself to still be admitted. The judge contemplated this and confirmed this is the only charge DDA Harvey is making.
Harvey asked if further narrative could be considered for the charge. She introduced information regarding six alleged uncharged cases against the accused.
DPD Gutierrez opposed this request by making the court aware that she was not informed of the six alleged uncharged cases, noting if the court were to allow such allegation information to be given to the jurors, it would be irrelevant and prejudicial, stating, “All the jury needs to know is there was a DVRO, they don’t need to know of the six uncharged offenses.”
Judge Wolk confirmed the DPD not only did not have information regarding the bodycam footage, but also was not informed of the six alleged uncharged cases against the accused.
DDA Harvey insisted she had thought DPD Gutierrez already had access and knowledge of the new information. Gutierrez then argued subsection (b) of Evidence Code § 1109 where it states that the defense is to be given all information, which was not what happened during this case.
The judge agreed with DDA Harvey and entertained the notion of late discovery, ruling no evidence be excluded from this case, but due to the late discovery of various amounts of information pertaining to the accused, the defense will be offered a continuance.
Judge Wolk added the DVRO could remain a form of evidence and information, but the narrative can be excluded.
