 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Ellis5/28/2003
dence are now unavailable is insufficient to discharge defendant's burden. [Citation.] A particular factual context must be established in which a specific claim of prejudice can be evaluated." (Shleffar v. Superior Court (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 937, 946 (Shleffar), italics added.)
If the defendant fails to sustain the burden of showing actual prejudice, the court need not consider justification for the delay. (Dunn-Gonzalez, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 911.) The trial court's ruling must be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 912.)
Defendant argues on appeal that she sustained the burden of establishing prejudice, and, alternatively, there is no justification for the prosecution's delay in filing charges against her. She asserts that " n a case in which guilt or innocence turned on the jury's assessment of Michelis' ability to comprehend her affairs, to exert her individual will, and to understand what she was doing, the unavailability of Michelis was a death-blow to the defense." Defendant says the court's assumption "that any prejudice . . . was de minimis because the jury would hear Michelis' statements anyway through other witnesses, misses the point. . . ." Defendant contends she was entitled to have Michelis testify at trial so the jury could better assess her mental state and credibility. She also argues the court's assumption that Michelis was competent to testify during "a narrow window" before July 1999 "confuses the standards for permitting a witness to testify and that required for instituting a conservatorship." We conclude the record supports the court's finding that defendant failed to establish the requisite prejudice.
None of the evidence that accompanied defendant's motion to dismiss showed that Michelis was better able to testify in July 1999 than at the time of trial. In support of her motion, defendant cited on the May 27, 1999, order terminating the temporary conservatorship, the public guardian's May 1999 investigation report, and Dr. Roger Hicks's May 1999 declaration regarding mental competence. The court order found Michelis competent. As temporary conservator, the deputy public guardian interviewed Michelis, her banker, attorney, doctor, health care worker, and various friends. She stated that Michelis "appear to be quite capable of making decisions regarding her health care and day-to-day living." At the same time, the deputy public guardian noted that " here appear a possibility that Ms. Michelis would be unable to resist undue influences with regard to her financial situation. She is a generous person and coupled with her drinking, may be susceptible ." It was in this context that she recommended that the conservatorship be dismissed and that Michelis's attorney's office handle the estate affairs. Dr. Hicks acknowledged in his declaration that he never conducted a formal evaluation of Michelis's mental function because he never felt the need to do so. He declared that he had never observed Michelis "to have any deficit in alertness or attention; information processing; thought processes; or ability to modulate mood and affect." However, Dr. Hicks noted Michelis suffered from alcoholism, and stated, "That condition does not appear to effect her mental capacity when she is not in a state of intoxication." (Italics added.) She was still drinking when Hicks saw her on May 14, 1999.
The prosecution submitted a written psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Crawford on February 6, 2000. Crawford interviewed Michelis on December 9, 1999, and January 20, 2000, talked with her friends, and reviewed written material from her attorney, caretakers, doctor, and the court. Friends "[gave] accounts of alcohol consumpt
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.
|
|