Skip to content
Name: People v. Baldine
Case #: C037704
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/20/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 3/13/02.

The jury did not commit misconduct by turning on a police scanner and determining it worked well and there was nothing wrong with the battery. The defendant had testified that it would operate on just for a second, and that then it would turn off. Here the jury merely used the scanner according to its nature, and the usage was within the scope and purview of the evidence. Additionally, the jury’s actions did not deprive defendant of his right to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ryan N.
Case #: A090755
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/23/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 1/16/02.

The trial court did not err when it limited cross examination of the victim regarding her relationship with her parents. Numerous questions were permitted regarding her troubled relationship with her parents, and appellant was able to establish that the victim initially blamed her parents for the suicide attempt, and only began to blame appellant after she spoke with her parents. Therefore, there was no violation of appellant’s right to confront the main witness against…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Eccleston
Case #: A090567
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/24/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 8/22/01

Evidence Code section 1360 permits statements made by victims of certain sexual offenses who are under the age of 12, which would otherwise be barred as hearsay, to be admitted if the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide sufficient indicia of reliability, among other requirements. The statute does not violate the accused's rights to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him under the U.S. Constitution. The victim was adopted by at age three by the defendant's mother. The offenses occurred and became known when she was eight. Two psychologists testified that it…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sandoval
Case #: C030917
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/28/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 7/11/01

Reversal of a murder conviction was required where no showing was made of a reasonable, good-faith effort to obtain the attendance of a crucial witness at trial prior to the admission of the witness's testimony from the preliminary hearing. Upon proof that the witness in question was a Mexican citizen residing in Mexico at the time of the trial, the trial court allowed the prosecution to present the transcript of his preliminary hearing to the jury. The appellate court here held that any exception to the confrontation requirement would arise of necessity, not because of convenience to the prosecution.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cromer
Case #: S076444
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 01/22/2001
Subsequent History: None

Where prior recorded testimony is admissible, its use does not violate the confrontation clause of the federal and state constitutions if the witness is unavailable and the prosecution has shown that it made a "good-faith effort" to obtain the presence of the witness at trial. Where the trial court has made a finding of due diligence, a reviewing court must apply the independent de novo standard of review test, and not the more deferential abuse of discretion test. Here, the Court of Appeal had applied the independent review test, and reversed the defendant's conviction. It found the…

View Full Summary