—the California Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of officer personnel records if the information contained in the records is relevant to his ability to defend against the charge.

Defendant also requests that this court independently review the sealed transcript of the hearing held in camera regarding disclosure of the officer's personnel records to determine whether the trial court properly denied his Pitchess motion

—to 537, the Supreme Court established that a criminal defendant could "compel discovery" of certain relevant information in the personnel files of police officers by making "general allegations which establish some cause for discovery" of that information and by showing how it would support a defense to the charge against him.

He also asks this court for an independent review of the trial court's in camera hearing on his motion for discovery

He contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for law enforcement personnel records

The right of an accused to discover evidence "is based on the fundamental proposition that he is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information.[Citations

—the court declared "... an accused in a criminal prosecution may compel discovery by demonstrating that the requested information will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.[Citations.] The requisite showing may be satisfied by general allegations which establish some cause for discovery other than `a mere desire for the benefit of all information which …

`A motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is "addressed solely to the sound discretion of the trial court

—this court concluded that where a peace officer is the alleged victim of a criminal battery, and the defendant asserts he acted in self-defense to counter excessive force, police records of prior citizen complaints of excessive force by the same officers are relevant and discoverable