 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
offenses from which the arrests arose did not involve moral turpitude.
At least with respect to the gun found in the car, the court may have been incorrect that the possible offense did not involve moral turpitude. It has been held that possession of certain illegal weapons is a crime of moral turpitude. (See People v. Garrett (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 795, 799-800.) However, defendants did not and do not argue the prior arrest incidents were admissible as conduct involving moral turpitude. Rather, their argument was and is that Santoyo's initial denial of having been arrested was relevant to his credibility because it was a lie under oath.
A witness's untruthfulness always has at least arguable bearing on his or her credibility. But untruthfulness on a collateral point is rarely so probative that its exclusion is prejudicial error. In People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, for example, the Supreme Court stated that evidence that a witness had knowingly given false information to a police officer in connection with a traffic ticket, in violation of Vehicle Code section 40000.5, "was, at best, only marginally probative but likely to be prejudicial." (Davis, supra, at pp. 502-503, fn. 3.) The court also stated the exclusion of the evidence would not have been prejudicial in light of its "relatively minor probative value." (Id., at p. 502.) Similarly, the court in People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225 found no prejudice in the exclusion of evidence that a prosecution witness had once lied to a probation officer about owning a gun. (Id., at p. 271.)
Here, in the context of the case as a whole, the jury would not have received a significantly different impression of Santoyo's credibility had the evidence of the arrests been admitted. (People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th 894, 946.) Santoyo's initial denial that he had been arrested was brief; he readily admitted shortly afterward that he had, in fact, been arrested. Hence, the initial denial had limited impeachment value.
Moreover, defendants were permitted to, and did, introduce evidence that Santoyo gave a false name, address, phone number, age, and birthdate to the police; testified inconsistently at trial with information he had given the police; and changed his trial testimony on the stand. It is not reasonably probable that, having apparently believed Santoyo's testimony enough to convict defendants in spite of his questionable credibility, the jury would have been persuaded otherwise had it known about his initial denial of having been arrested. Given the evidence's limited significance, its exclusion was not an abuse of discretion and in any event could not have been prejudicial.
4. Evidence of Santoyo's false statements to police
As just noted, Santoyo gave false information to the police when he was questioned about the shooting in this case. Santoyo testified at one point that he made the false statements because he was nervous and scared and thought he was in trouble. Later, he testified he made the false statements because the police were questioning him at the scene, in front of a crowd of people. Still later, he said he made the false statements because he was afraid of defendants knowing who he was after he had identified them in this case. He said he was fearful for his life based on what had happened to Galvan, his friend.
Much later in the trial, after Santoyo had completed his testimony, defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of the preliminary hearing testimony of Detective SanFilippo, who had interviewed Santoyo about the shooting. SanFilippo had testified that Santoyo said he gave the police a false name because he was illegally in the country and did not
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.
|
|