People v. Arauz
210 Cal. App. 4th 1394
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Stroube Street shootings: victims shot; evidence includes bullets, shell casings, and shoe prints tying to defendants.
- An informant (G.B.) recorded Velasquez’s jailhouse statements implicating Velasquez and the defendants in the driveby shooting.
- A recorded jailhouse conversation showed Velasquez’s admission and identification of Arauz and Kline as shooters.
- Wiretapped Colonia Chiques calls show gang activity, intent, and retaliatory plans related to the shootings.
- Sergeant Williams opined on Colonia Chiques and El Rio gangs, including aliases for Arauz and Kline.
- The court later modified sentencing: stay two-year street terror sentences and convert a 10-year gang enhancement to 15-year minimum parole eligibility under Mesa and Lopez; judgments affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Velasquez’s jailhouse statements | Arauz argues statements were not trustworthy. | Kline contends statements were not admissible under the penal-interest rule. | Admissible as declaration against penal interest; trustworthy under totality of circumstances. |
| Confrontation clause and testimonial/non-testimonial distinction | Velasquez’s statements were testimonial per Crawford. | Statements unwitting to an inmate informant should be non-testimonial. | Statements were non-testimonial; no Crawford violation. |
| Telephone wiretap evidence and its probative value | Evidence was cumulative and prejudicial to due process. | Evidence aided proof of identity, motive, and gang status. | Wiretap evidence properly admitted to show gang membership and intent; not unduly prejudicial. |
| Sentencing adjustments post Mesa and Lopez | Section 654 and 186.22(b)(5) terms misapplied. | Enhancements and concurrent terms warranted as originally imposed. | Stay two-year street-terror sentences; strike 10-year gang enhancements; impose 15-year minimum parole terms; modify abstracts accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lawley, 27 Cal.4th 102 (2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility rulings under Evidence Code 1230)
- People v. Duarte, 24 Cal.4th 603 (2000) (trustworthiness required for declarations against penal interest)
- People v. Greenberger, 58 Cal.App.4th 298 (1997) (totality of circumstances in evaluating trustworthiness)
- People v. Cervantes, 118 Cal.App.4th 162 (2004) (admissibility of jailhouse statements against penal interest)
- People v. Brown, 31 Cal.4th 518 (2003) (trustworthiness of statements where declarant believes statements will be used in court)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (non-testimonial hearsay and confrontation clause scope)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (central framework for testimonial vs. non-testimonial hearsay)
- People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (2004) (gang evidence admissible to show motive, identity)