People v. Chavez, 26 Cal.3d 334 (1978) p.141supp
hearsay: admissible evidence
Rival gangs in LA. A car cruises by the territory of a rival gang and starts shooting. The police arrive and chase the car. The car crashes and every one gets out of the car. The police had no way to know who was holding the rifle and who filed the shots. Two days later the officers are interviewing the gang members. One member, Angel, says that Bird fired the shots. Two months later he is interviewed again and in that written statement he says Bird fired the gun. At the testimony in the preliminary hearing, although reluctant, he is confronted with the written statement, and he admitts that he told the officers that Bird had fired the shots. At trial, Angel testifies that he did not see who fired the shots. Angel also testifies that he did not tell the police officer that Bird fired the shots. The prosecutor then calls the police officer. The officer testified that Angel said that Bird fired the shots. Angel testifies that he signed a statement after being interviewed by the police.
Angel charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Do we have evidence as to who fired the shots?
In CA statements to police officer are admissible to prove the truth of what is asserted (Section 1235 / 770). So we have evidence that Bird fired the shot. Admissible to prove the truth of what is asserted. FEDERAL COURT: different; have to go with identification; not as a prior inconsistent statement because it was not under oath. So it could get in under 801(d)(1)(C). IN CA you could not use identification section 1238. The statement that was given to the officer (written) can be submitted as well. Under 1235 prior inconsistent statement. Under Federal Rules the statement cannot come in as a prior inconsistency because not under oath, but can come in as a statement of identification. > Testimony from preliminary hearing is admissible under both Federal and CA rules; is prior inconsistent evidence under oath. Consistent with with section 1335/770 and 801(d)(1)(A). It is also a statement of identification. WOuld not be allowedable under 1238 since he is denying that he made the identification but it would come in under 801(d)(1)(C).
Created on: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 at 10:58:23 (PDT)