 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Clavano9/8/2005
gardless of the truth of the statement, the fact that the statement was made is relevant to the declarant's state of mind. (People v. Ortiz, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 389.) "A limiting instruction is required with declarations used as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's mental state; that is, the declaration is not received for the truth of the matter stated and can only be used for the limited purpose for which it is offered." (Ibid.; Evid. Code, § 355.)
Here, the only statement Oliver made that concerned his state of mind was that he was angry that Townsend stole the stereo from Amando's car. This statement constituted direct, not circumstantial, evidence of Oliver's state of mind and was offered to prove its truth, that is, that Oliver was angry. The statement was therefore hearsay, and its admission against Amando -- without his having a prior opportunity to cross-examine Oliver -- violated Crawford.
The rest of Oliver's statements were also hearsay as to Amando and were offered and admitted for their truth: Oliver said Townsend had been to Oliver's apartment several times; Townsend borrowed Amando's car and did not return it; Oliver went looking for the car with a person whose name he did not know; Oliver found the car with the stereo and some personal items missing from it; Oliver was not involved in the shooting. None of these statements were offered solely as circumstantial evidence of Oliver's state of mind. Indeed, no limiting instruction was given telling the jury to consider Oliver's statements solely for the non-hearsay purpose of determining Oliver's state of mind, and in closing argument, the prosecutor used the evidence of Oliver's statements for their truth and to link Amando to Townsend's murder.
In sum, the admission of all of Oliver's statements to Detective Loveless constituted hearsay as to Amando, and the admission of the statements against Amando, without his having a prior opportunity to cross-examine Oliver, violated Crawford.
The People rely on a pre-Crawford case, People v. Han (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 797 (Han), for the proposition that statements admissible under Evidence Code section 1250 are admissible against the declarant and his or her confederates. (Han, supra, at pp. 805-806.) Han involved the admission of a pre-conspiracy statement by a defendant against her co-defendants. The statement was not admissible against the co-defendants under Evidence Code section 1223. Based on California Supreme Court precedent, the court held it was proper for the jury to consider the statements against the co-defendants for the purpose of explaining the defendant's or declarant's later actions under Evidence Code section 1250. (Han, supra, at pp. 805-807.) Han is distinguishable because it was not decided in light of the holding in Crawford. Under Crawford, testimonial hearsay statements are inadmissible against a defendant -- for any purpose. Here, all of Oliver's statements constituted testimonial hearsay against Amando.
Nevertheless, the erroneous admission of Olivier's statements in evidence against Amando was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the improperly admitted evidence of Oliver's statements did not contribute to the verdicts against Amando. (People v. Song (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 973, 984.)
The properly admitted evidence against Amando was overwhelming. On the day of the shooting, Amando told Cardenaz that Townsend had stolen his car and stereo and that he was going to "handle it, deal with it." Cardenaz further testified that, shortly before the shooting, he encountered Oliver and Amando outside the wrought iron fence near Avila's apartment. Oliver jumped over the fence, and Am
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.
|
|