Skip to content
Name: People v. Stallworth
Case #: B198111
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 07/01/2008
Summary

Readvisement of Fifth Amendment rights is not necessary if a proper warning has been given, and the subsequent interrogation is “reasonably contemporaneous” with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver. Appellant and three other individuals were involved in freeway shootings that resulted in the death of one of the victims. The day after the shootings, appellant and two other individuals were involved in a fight at a wedding party. Appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, three counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle, assault, and weapons and gang enhancements. During the course of the investigation prior to trial, appellant was questioned by the police in a custodial setting on three separate dates. He was fully advised of his Miranda rights on the first occasion and waived them. On the second occasion, he was reminded that he had been previously advised and acknowledged the previous advisement and again waived his rights. On the third occasion, he was again advised of his constitutional rights. The appellate court evaluated the interrogations of appellant with respect to the following factors: (1) the amount of time that passed following the initial waiver; (2) a change in the identity of the interrogator or location of the interrogation; (3) an official reminder of the prior advisement; (4) appellant’s sophistication or past experience with law enforcement; and (5) further indicia that appellant subjectively understood and waived his rights. On the basis of these factors, the court determined that under the totality of the circumstances, appellant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights at each session. Severance of trials of multiple defendants may be necessary when a defendant’s extrajudicial statement implicating the codefendant cannot be redacted to protect the codefendant’s rights without prejudicing the defendant. Appellant was tried with a codefendant from the freeway shooting incident. At the trial, the prosecution introduced appellant’s extrajudicial statements but redacted them to delete any reference to the codefendant. The appellate court found that the redaction fundamentally changed the actual meaning of the statement so as to distort appellant’s role in the shootings, and enhanced its inculpatory value by resulting in a significantly different account from that of other witnesses. Without the redaction, appellant’s statement dovetailed with the other accounts. The redaction was prejudicial as it increased the likelihood that the jury believed appellant was the shooter. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions relating to the freeway shootings. CALCRIM No. 401 adequately sets forth the elements for aiding and abetting liability.
CALCRIM No. 1401 adequately defines the requisite mental state for gang enhancement liability.