Skip to content
Name: People v. Parrish
Case #: B188975
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 06/19/2007
Summary

Statements otherwise admissible under Evidence Code section 356 are generally not inadmissable as a violation of the Confrontation Clause. (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36.) Appellant’s defense to the murder charges was that he was a former gang member who had been forced to participate in the crime by active gang members. He sought to introduce a partial statement of a codefendant to support his position. His motion to exclude the harmful portions of the statement was denied, with the trial court making a finding of all or nothing. Under section 356 where part of a statement is given in evidence by one party, the whole may be inquired into by an adverse party. Observing that section 356 is based on equitable concepts (i.e., fairness prohibits one party from using only selected aspects of a statement and thereby giving a misleading impression) rather than reliability of testimony, the appellate court found no error by the trial court’s ruling. [Editor’s note: Although not discussed here, other cases distinguish “the whole” statement pursuant section 356 to include only relevant and admissible evidence. See People v. Gambos (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 187, 192-193.)]