People v. Arceo
195 Cal. App. 4th 556
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ernesto Mejorado and Gabriel Arceo were charged with multiple murders in a gang-related sequence; two juries convicted—Mejorado of Flores, San Miguel, Sanchez murders, and Arceo of San Miguel and Sanchez murders—with conspiracy findings and various firearm, gang, and special-circumstance enhancements.
- Key witnesses were David, Adan, and Jessika Merrill, whose trial testimony included inculpatory statements by Sergio (Sergio Mejorado) and Mejorado, as well as Mejorado’s statements to Adan; these statements involved planning, execution, and concealment of the crimes.
- Flores was murdered first; later, Sanchez and San Miguel were killed, with body disposal and cleanup activities described by Adan and David.
- Discovery and investigation followed a police tip from Merrill; numerous search warrants and interviews led to charges against Arceo and Mejorado, with Borjas and Ramirez involved in related proceedings.
- Arceo challenged the admissibility of non-testimonial statements by codefendants to David and Adan as violating the Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; the trial court admitted those statements under hearsay and conspiracy principles.
- On appeal, the court concluded there was no Sixth Amendment violation because the challenged statements were non-testimonial and admissible as declarations against interest or as coconspirator statements, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-testimonial, inculpatory statements by non-testifying codefendants violated the Sixth Amendment | Arceo asserts Bruton/Aranda violations. | Arceo argues the statements were inadmissible hearsay under Bruton/Aranda and Confrontation Clause. | No violation; statements were non-testimonial and admissible under hearsay/conspiracy exceptions. |
| Applicability of Bruton/Aranda to non-testimonial statements | Bruton applies to all incriminating codefendant statements. | Bruton should overrule only for testimonial statements; non-testimonial are not barred. | Bruton does not apply to non-testimonial statements; Crawford/DavisWhorton guide governs. |
| Whether statements against interest or trustworthiness justify admission without cross-examination | Statements by Sergio and Arceo were trustworthy declarations against interest. | Such statements may be unreliable and improperly admitted. | Admissible under Evidence Code 1230 and trustworthiness standards; declarations against interest properly admitted. |
| Admissibility of Mejorado’s statement to Adan in furtherance of conspiracy | Statement properly admissible as coconspirator admission. | Lacks connection to conspiracy doctrine for Arceo’s involvement. | Admitted as in furtherance of conspiracy; admissibility was proper and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Harmlessness of any Bruton/Aranda error | If error occurred, it affected trial outcomes. | There was reversible error affecting verdicts. | Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence of guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs non-testimonial statements determine Confrontation Clause applicability)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (clarifies testimonial nature of statements as test of Confrontation Clause)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (Confrontation Clause limits apply to testimonial statements only)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (codefendant’s confession cannot be used against co-defendant if facially incriminating)
- Aranda v. Texas, 63 Cal.2d 518 (Cal. 1965) (early confrontation-rule foundation; pre-Crawford framework)
- Cervantes v. People, 118 Cal.App.4th 162 (Cal. App. 2004) (non-testimonial declarations against interest may be admitted with trustworthiness)
- Greenberger v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. App. 1997) (declarations against penal interest admissible with sufficient reliability)
- People v. Fletcher, 13 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 1996) (limits and exceptions to Bruton/Aranda applicability in California)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (nontestimonial codefendant statements not violating confrontation with proper limitations)
- People v. Greenberger, 58 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. App. 1997) (trustworthiness and reliability principles for statements against penal interest)