 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Ellis5/28/2003
a foot on her neck, stuffed socks in her mouth, tied her up with her own lingerie, and taped her mouth with duct tape. She also claimed that her neighbors and brother were trying to kill her. Defendant denied the claims of physical abuse, and neither Dunbar nor the police found evidence to support the claims. Michelis fired defendant, and she left the same day.
Psychiatrist Helen Crawford reviewed police and medical records and examined Michelis in December 1999. She opined that between May and July of 1999, Michelis suffered cognitive impairment caused by alcoholic dementia, and would have been unable to manage her financial affairs or protect herself from fraud.
Defendant testified in her own defense at trial and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. She acknowledged she was "stupid" in the way she handled Michelis's financial affairs but never thought she was stealing from her.
DISCUSSION
I. Pre-Accusation Delay
Before the preliminary hearing, defendant moved to dismiss the criminal complaint. She argued that the delay of more than two years between the dates of the alleged crimes and the date the complaint was filed violated her right to due process under the federal and state Constitutions. Defendant argued she was prejudiced because, but for the delay, Dottie Michelis would have been competent to testify at trial. The prosecution responded that defendant failed to show actual prejudice and, in any event, the delay was justified.
The court denied the motion, finding that defendant failed to establish prejudice. It determined defendant failed to show "that the victim's mental condition changed substantially during the period of delay." The court noted that the alleged crimes occurred in June and July of 1999, and the conservatorship was established in early July 1999. It found there was "no showing that the victim could have been competent as a witness at any time since July 1999." Moreover, even if defendant showed that Michelis could have testified earlier, there was still no prejudice. The court explained that " irtually all of the statements made by the victim either were in writing or made to other persons who presumably are able to testify as to what she said. The outcome of this case will turn more on the context of the statements made by the victim rather than on the statements themselves." Defendant challenges the court's ruling in this appeal.
The parties agree that unreasonable delay between the time an offense is committed and the date a pleading is filed may result in violation of a defendant's due process rights under the state and federal Constitutions. (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 107.) They also agree the trial court uses a three-step analysis to determine whether the delay resulted in a constitutional violation. "First, the defendant must show he has been prejudiced by the delay. Second, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to justify the delay. Third, the court balances the harm against the justification." (People v. Dunn- Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 899, 911 (Dunn-Gonzalez).)
"Prejudice may be shown by loss of material witnesses due to lapse of time or loss of evidence because of fading memory attributable to the delay." (Dunn-Gonzalez, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 911.) Appellate courts emphasize that defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice. (See People v. Price (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 536, 542.) "It is only because a delay can infect the truth finding process by preventing the accused from mounting a viable defense that a dismissal is ever justified. [ ] Thus, speculation about prejudice because potential witnesses' memories have failed or because witnesses and evi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|