 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
ng-standing animosity toward the Rizos.
Even if defendants are correct, Officer Cobb's testimony as to what Santoyo had told him merely repeated Santoyo's own testimony. Erroneous admission of hearsay evidence of a witness's prior statement is harmless where the evidence is cumulative, so that it is not reasonably probable the evidence affected the verdict. (People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th 92, 153.) Accordingly, any error in admitting Officer Cobb's testimony was not prejudicial.
D. Right of Confrontation
Defendants claim the introduction of certain out-of-court statements of Ivan and Jesus violated their constitutional right to confront witnesses against them, under Bruton v. U.S. (1968) 391 U.S. 123, 126-137 [88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476] (Bruton) and People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, 528-530 (Aranda). As the Attorney General notes, it is not clear exactly which statements defendants claim violated their confrontation right. Defendants refer at various times to Ivan's threats against Galvan in the night club, Jesus's statements in the night club, and Jesus's statement to the police after the shooting.
Bruton and Aranda prohibit admission of a co-defendant's incriminating out-of-court statement when the co-defendant does not testify and therefore cannot be cross-examined by the other defendant. However, the prohibition "extends only to confessions that are not only `powerfully incriminating' but also `facially incriminating' of the nondeclarant defendant." (People v. Fletcher, supra, 13 Cal.4th 451, 455.)
Ivan's and Jesus's out-of-court statements in this case were neither powerfully nor facially incriminating of any other defendant. Ivan's threats mentioned no other defendant, and in any case were not "facially" incriminating of anyone since they did not confess any criminal conduct but merely stated an intention to carry out such conduct in the future. The same is true of Jesus's references to Krazy Crowd in the night club.
Jesus's police interview statements incriminated only himself, Carlos Reyes, and perhaps Ivan. The statements were not presented to Ivan's jury and therefore could not have violated his right of confrontation.
Admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement that is not facially incriminating of another defendant does not violate Bruton and Aranda "even though the confession may incriminate the defendant when considered in conjunction with other evidence properly admitted against the defendant." (People v. Fletcher, supra, 13 Cal.4th 451, 456.) Ivan's and Jesus's statements tending to establish their own involvement in the homicide may, by implication, have tended to establish involvement on the part of the other defendants given the fact they were all seen together on the occasion of the shooting. But as the statements were not themselves incriminating of any other defendant, their admission did not violate the other defendants' right of confrontation.
E. Exclusion of Evidence Impeaching Santoyo
Defendants contend the court violated their constitutional rights of confrontation, to present a defense, to jury trial, and to due process by excluding defense evidence offered to impeach the credibility of the prosecution's principal witness, Miguel Santoyo.
1. General principles governing exclusion of defense evidence
The trial court's determination whether evidence has sufficient relevance to be admitted is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 554-555.) As a general matter, the application of the ordinary rules of evidence does not impermissibly infringe on a defendant's due process right to presen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|