Skip to content
Name: People v. Felix (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 439
Case #: B317938
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 03/07/2024
Subsequent History: Opn. modified 3/12/2024

Defendant, who was a foreign national driving a car that belonged to a third party, was lawfully detained while an officer made further inquiries of the dispatcher performing the records check for defendant and the owner of the vehicle. Following a valid traffic stop in Utah, Felix provided an officer with an identification card from Mexico and vehicle registration in the name of a third party from California. He was detained approximately 12 minutes while the officer performed a records check and asked dispatch for additional information. The officer then obtained consent to search the vehicle just prior to dispatch…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: B291137
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/23/2019

Trial court properly admitted defendant's un-Mirandized statements to an undercover informant regarding a gang-related shooting that defendant made while in jail on an unrelated matter. Defendant, a gang member, shot and wounded a man. While he was in jail on an unrelated offense, police placed an informant in his cell. He made incriminating statements to the informant, which were recorded. No Miranda warning was given. The trial court denied defendant's motion to exclude his statements and the recording was played for the jury. Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and other crimes. On appeal he argued admission of the recording…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Keo
Case #: B286844
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 09/23/2019

No Miranda warning was required where defendant made incriminating statements to a social worker who was conducting a dependency investigation because social workers are not law enforcement officers. Defendant was convicted of criminal threats and the second degree murder of his girlfriend, with whom he had two children. On appeal he claimed violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because the trial court admitted un-Mirandized custodial statements he made to a social worker who was performing a dependency investigation and who questioned him without an attorney present. Held: Affirmed. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Almeda
Case #: C077141
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/12/2017

Admission of cellmate's testimony relating defendant's incriminating statements did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the cellmate was not acting under the government's direction. Villa and Almeda were charged with first degree murder for shooting a man parked in the car next to them at a stoplight. While in custody awaiting trial, Villa discussed details of the crime with his cellmate, Rhodes, who in turn reached out to the district attorney to offer Villa's statements in exchange for leniency for his own sentence. Rhodes, his attorney, and the prosecutor signed an agreement stating that the prosecution would…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gonzalez
Case #: D059083
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/29/2012

A parole agent's promise of leniency to the parolee, which causes the parolee to confess, results in an involuntary and inadmissible confession. Appellant, charged with attempted murder, aggravated mayhem, simple mayhem, and other offenses and enhancements, brought a motion in the trial court seeking to exclude his confession on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of Miranda and his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The motion was denied and following his conviction, he raised the issue on appeal. According to the evidence, the victim was attacked with a hammer and sustained serious injuries. Following appellant's arrest,…

View Full Summary
Name: Fairbank v. Ayers
Case #: 08-99018
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 02/15/2011
Subsequent History: opn. mod. 650 F.3d 1243

To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, it must be proved that the informant was acting on the government's behalf and that incriminating statements were deliberately elicited. Before appellant's murder trial, he moved to exclude letters he wrote to a jailhouse informant in which he made incriminating statements, arguing that the informant acted as a state agent to obtain information. The trial court held the evidence was admissible. Appellant argued the use of letters written by him to a jailhouse informant violated his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. (See…

View Full Summary
Name: Kansas v. Ventris
Case #: 07-1356
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 04/29/2009
Subsequent History: cross cites: 129 S.Ct. 1841; 173 L.Ed.2d 801

Testimony concerning inconsistent statements obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment is admissible for impeachment. Ventris and Theel were charged with murder and other offenses. Prior to trial, an informant was planted in Ventris's cell, who heard him admit to shooting and robbing the victim. At trial, Ventris testified that Theel committed the offenses. The trial court permitted the informant to testify about the contrary statement over Ventris's objection. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed Ventris's subsequent conviction finding the informant's statements were not admissible for any reason, including impeachment. The United States Supreme Court reversed that opinion, holding that the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Viray
Case #: H026515
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/14/2005

A complaint was filed charging appellant with committing elder abuse. On the day of her arraignment, the prosecutor and an investigator interrogated her. She had no counsel present and was not advised that she had a right to counsel. Her statements were subsequently admitted at her court trial without objection. On appeal, she argued that the interrogation was a violation of Massiah v. United States, and that the statements should have been excluded. The appellate court agreed that there had been a violation of appellant's right to counsel, but that the error was not reversible…

View Full Summary
Name: Fellers v. United States
Case #: 20-Feb
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 01/26/2004
Subsequent History: cross cites: 124 S. Ct. 1019; 157 L. Ed. 2d 1016

Where officers deliberately elicited information from a suspect after he had been indicted, the information required suppression under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and subsequent statements should have been suppressed as the fruit of the first unlawfully elicited statements. In this case officers went to talk to Fellers following his indictment in order to discuss his involvement in the offenses with which he was charged. During the discussion he made several inculpatory statements. After spending about fifteen minutes with Fellers, the officers transported him to the county jail, where they advised him for the first time…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Martin
Case #: E028833
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/14/2002
Subsequent History: None

Defendant’s constitutional rights under Massiah v.United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201 were not violated when the police arranged for his girlfriend to secretly record inculpatory telephone conversations while he was represented by counsel. In addition to a murder, the police were investigating defendant’s later intimidation of the girlfriend as a witness. Here the police provided the recording equipment. The girlfriend voluntarily contacted the police (although she was in fear for hers and her daughter’s lives), the police did not give her any instructions or suggested questions. The appellate court found no waiver of Sixth Amendment rights…

View Full Summary