Accomplices - instructions on corroboration
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
CALCRIM 318 and 335 did not erroneously instruct jury that accomplice's testimony at trial could be corroborated by same accomplice's out-of-court statements. "No reasonable jury would have understood CALCRIM Nos. 318 and 335 to allow Shands to corroborate his own testimony." Even if they were possibly confusing, court also gave CALCRIM 301 which informed jury that Shands' accomplice status rendered testimony inadmissible without additional evidence. Counsel's arguments were consistent with that interpretation.
DUI - forensic report admitted under EC 1280
Lee v. Valverde (4th Dist., 10/29/09, E046731) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Printout of blood test results conducted and reported at or near time of event, but printed or "published" on June 19 was admissible under EC 1280 official records exception. The "report" of June 19 reflected merely a transfer of information from one form of storage to another.
Factual innocence - finding reversed
People v. Medlin (2nd Dist., 10/29/09, B209614) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Findings of factual innocence of dependent care abused by two nurses reversed because notwithstanding acquittals at trial, there was reasonable cause to believe they committed the offense, which is the standard a finding of factual innocence must meet. (PC 851.8(b) and (c).) Acquittal on criminal charges does not prove innocence, but merely the existence of a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms (1984) 465 U.S. 354, 361.) A factual innocence finding "shall not be made unless the court finds that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made." (Sec. 851.8(b).) The record must exonerate, not merely raise a substantial question as to guilt. (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 909.)
Flight - failure to instruct
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
PC 1127c does not require flight instruction upon introduction of evidence that might be construed as flight. Jury must be instructed on flight only if prosecution relies on such evidence to prove guilt. Here, prosecution did not argue that defendants demonstrated consciousness of guilt.
Forfeiture - objection at sidebar
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Counsel may object at unreported sidebar, and when court later memorializes the timeliness of the object "for the record" issue is preserved for review. (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 937.)
Hearsay - defendant wanted to shoot up block
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Statement that defendant "wanted to shoot up the block" properly introduced to show reputation after defense counsel asked questions to show that defendant had a reputation for nonaggression. While a defendant may introduce evidence of character in form of opinion or reputation (EC 1102(a)), prosecutor may present like evidence to rebut defendant's evidence. (EC 1102 (b); People v. Hempstead (1983) 148 ca3d 949, 953.) Opinion based on hearsay is allowed. (EC 1324.) Here, prosecutor's "have you heard" question after defendant elicited evidence of reputation was proper.
New trial - based on jury misconduct
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial based on juror misconduct. Under standards of People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 822, failure to disclose was not sufficient to show bias. The questions she was asked concerned her ability to keep an open mind when considering evidence of drug use, not about personal use. The man accused of rape was not a close friend, which is what was asked. She did reveal a hit-and-run in which a friend died. Conversations about drug use did not introduce extraneous evidence into jury room under standard of In re Lucas (2004) 33 Cal.4th 682. Trial court properly refused to disclose juror information, but erred (harmlessly) in holding it had no authority to order jurors to appear at post-trial hearing. Limitations in Code of Civil Procedure sections 206 and 237 do not violate federal constitution.
Search & seizure - Chimel search after defendant removed
People v. Leal (6th Dist., 10/29/09, H031174) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Search was beyond scope of arm's reach rule of Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 and Arizona v. Gant (2009) ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (which reaffirmed Chimel). Police searched area in house where defendant had been before he came out and was handcuffed and taken away on misd warrants. Police not entitled to protection of Herring v. United States (2009) 129 S.Ct. 695 because even before Gant, law was not "muddled."
Witnesses - restricting cross-examination
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Court did not abuse discretion by not allowing defense to cross-examine witness about voluntary 72-hour psychiatric hold. Probative value outweighed by time consumption. Defense could ask whether witness snitched to stay out of prison, but not ask about prison terms (felony convictions had already been admitted). "Trial court did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the bounds of reason." (See EC 352.) Credibility had already been vigorously attacked on bases of drug use, motive to lie, and criminal convictions.
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
CALCRIM 318 and 335 did not erroneously instruct jury that accomplice's testimony at trial could be corroborated by same accomplice's out-of-court statements. "No reasonable jury would have understood CALCRIM Nos. 318 and 335 to allow Shands to corroborate his own testimony." Even if they were possibly confusing, court also gave CALCRIM 301 which informed jury that Shands' accomplice status rendered testimony inadmissible without additional evidence. Counsel's arguments were consistent with that interpretation.
DUI - forensic report admitted under EC 1280
Lee v. Valverde (4th Dist., 10/29/09, E046731) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Printout of blood test results conducted and reported at or near time of event, but printed or "published" on June 19 was admissible under EC 1280 official records exception. The "report" of June 19 reflected merely a transfer of information from one form of storage to another.
Factual innocence - finding reversed
People v. Medlin (2nd Dist., 10/29/09, B209614) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Findings of factual innocence of dependent care abused by two nurses reversed because notwithstanding acquittals at trial, there was reasonable cause to believe they committed the offense, which is the standard a finding of factual innocence must meet. (PC 851.8(b) and (c).) Acquittal on criminal charges does not prove innocence, but merely the existence of a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms (1984) 465 U.S. 354, 361.) A factual innocence finding "shall not be made unless the court finds that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made." (Sec. 851.8(b).) The record must exonerate, not merely raise a substantial question as to guilt. (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 909.)
Flight - failure to instruct
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
PC 1127c does not require flight instruction upon introduction of evidence that might be construed as flight. Jury must be instructed on flight only if prosecution relies on such evidence to prove guilt. Here, prosecution did not argue that defendants demonstrated consciousness of guilt.
Forfeiture - objection at sidebar
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Counsel may object at unreported sidebar, and when court later memorializes the timeliness of the object "for the record" issue is preserved for review. (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 937.)
Hearsay - defendant wanted to shoot up block
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Statement that defendant "wanted to shoot up the block" properly introduced to show reputation after defense counsel asked questions to show that defendant had a reputation for nonaggression. While a defendant may introduce evidence of character in form of opinion or reputation (EC 1102(a)), prosecutor may present like evidence to rebut defendant's evidence. (EC 1102 (b); People v. Hempstead (1983) 148 ca3d 949, 953.) Opinion based on hearsay is allowed. (EC 1324.) Here, prosecutor's "have you heard" question after defendant elicited evidence of reputation was proper.
New trial - based on jury misconduct
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial based on juror misconduct. Under standards of People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 822, failure to disclose was not sufficient to show bias. The questions she was asked concerned her ability to keep an open mind when considering evidence of drug use, not about personal use. The man accused of rape was not a close friend, which is what was asked. She did reveal a hit-and-run in which a friend died. Conversations about drug use did not introduce extraneous evidence into jury room under standard of In re Lucas (2004) 33 Cal.4th 682. Trial court properly refused to disclose juror information, but erred (harmlessly) in holding it had no authority to order jurors to appear at post-trial hearing. Limitations in Code of Civil Procedure sections 206 and 237 do not violate federal constitution.
Search & seizure - Chimel search after defendant removed
People v. Leal (6th Dist., 10/29/09, H031174) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Search was beyond scope of arm's reach rule of Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 and Arizona v. Gant (2009) ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (which reaffirmed Chimel). Police searched area in house where defendant had been before he came out and was handcuffed and taken away on misd warrants. Police not entitled to protection of Herring v. United States (2009) 129 S.Ct. 695 because even before Gant, law was not "muddled."
Witnesses - restricting cross-examination
People v. Tuggles (3rd Dist., 10/29/09, C054250) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Court did not abuse discretion by not allowing defense to cross-examine witness about voluntary 72-hour psychiatric hold. Probative value outweighed by time consumption. Defense could ask whether witness snitched to stay out of prison, but not ask about prison terms (felony convictions had already been admitted). "Trial court did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the bounds of reason." (See EC 352.) Credibility had already been vigorously attacked on bases of drug use, motive to lie, and criminal convictions.
