 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Clavano9/8/2005
it was deadlocked.
Authorizing disclosure upon the speculative showing made here would encourage "harassment of jurors by losing counsel eager to discover defects in the jurors' attentive and deliberative mental processes" and undermine the stability of jury verdicts. (People v. Hamilton, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 294, fn. 17.)
C. The Trial Court's Admission of Oliver's Custodial Statements to Detective Loveless Violated Defendant's Right to Confrontation Because the Statements were Testimonial; However, the Error was Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Amando contends that the trial court's admission of Oliver's custodial statements to Detective Loveless were testimonial and therefore violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford. Under Crawford, the admission of "testimonial" hearsay statements violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. (Crawford, supra, 124 S.Ct. at pp. 1369, 1374.)
Detective Loveless testified that Oliver said he knew Townsend and that Townsend had been to his apartment four or five times. A week or two earlier, Townsend asked Oliver whether he could borrow Amando's Escort. Townsend never returned the Escort. Thereafter, Oliver went to look for the car with a person whose name he did not know. He found the Escort, with the stereo and some personal items missing. Oliver said he was angry about the incident, that Townsend had "burned" him, and if he could catch up to him he would " eat his ass, put him in the hospital." Oliver denied being involved in the shooting, however.
The People concede that Oliver's statements were testimonial, because they were taken during a police interrogation. We agree. Crawford held that, "Whatever else the term [testimonial] covers, it applies at a minimum to . . . police interrogations." (Crawford, supra, 124 S.Ct. at p. 1374.) Because Oliver's statements to Detective Loveless were taken during the course of a police interrogation, they were testimonial. Their admission against Amando -- without his having a prior opportunity to cross-examine Oliver -- violated Amando's right to confrontation.
The People argue, however, that Oliver's statements did not implicate Crawford because they were not offered for their truth, but for the non-hearsay purpose of showing Oliver's state of mind under Evidence Code section 1250. The People rely on the Crawford court's observation that the confrontation clause "does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (Crawford, supra, 124 S.Ct. at p. 1369, fn. 9.) We reject the People's contention, because all of Oliver's statements were admitted for their truth against Oliver and Amando.
Under Evidence Code section 1250, evidence of a statement of a declarant's "`then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation . . . is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when: [ ] (1) The evidence is offered to prove the declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when it is itself an issue in the action; or [ ] (2) The evidence is offered to prove or explain acts or conduct of the declarant.'" Evidence admitted under this section "is hearsay; it describes a mental or physical condition, intent, plan, or motive and is received for the truth of the matter stated." (People v. Ortiz (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 377, 389.)
In contrast, a statement that constitutes circumstantial rather than direct evidence of the declarant's state of mind is not hearsay. Re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|