People v. Blessett
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 164
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Blessett shot and killed Christopher Sisoukchaleun after a street confrontation where gang identifiers were exchanged; surveillance video and eyewitnesses showed Blessett retrieving a gun from his pickup and shooting at close range.
- A jury convicted Blessett of first degree murder and felon-in-possession; found true multiple firearm enhancements and a gang enhancement (§ 186.22).
- At trial a gang expert (Detective Saario) testified about gang culture, the Meadowview Bloods, predicate offenses, and multiple historical contacts between Blessett and police; much of that testimony relied on out-of-court reports or records.
- Defense counsel made general in limine objections (including a boilerplate reference to confrontation rights) but did not specifically object under Crawford or Sanchez to the expert’s case‑specific hearsay.
- On appeal Blessett argued Crawford/Sanchez confrontation-clause error and ineffective assistance for failing to object; the court also considered remand issues under SB 620 and whether some firearm enhancement sentences should be struck or stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang expert repeating case‑specific out‑of‑court statements (Confrontation Clause) | People: Trial objection was forfeited; even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Blessett: Expert relayed testimonial, case‑specific hearsay (Crawford/Sanchez) and it violated confrontation rights. | Forfeited — defendant failed to make a specific Crawford objection; even if not forfeited, any error was harmless under Chapman. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to expert’s testimonial basis testimony | People: No Strickland prejudice; evidence of guilt overwhelming. | Blessett: Counsel unreasonably failed to object given evolving law (Williams, Dungo) and that prejudiced outcome. | Some failure to object was deficient for case‑specific testimony, but no Strickland prejudice — convictions and enhancements stand. |
| Admissibility of predicate‑offense testimony used to prove gang status | People: Predicate offenses concern gang history/operations — permissible background for an expert. | Blessett: Such predicate evidence can be testimonial/case‑specific hearsay. | Predicate‑offense testimony treated as non‑case‑specific background and admissible under Sanchez. |
| Sentencing technicalities (gang enhancement term and firearm enhancement procedures) | People: sentencing lawful as imposed | Blessett: challenge to 10‑year gang enhancement term and to how firearm enhancements were imposed/stayed | Court ordered strike of 10‑year gang enhancement term; remanded for trial court to consider striking §12022.5/12022.53 enhancements and to impose/stay as appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent confrontation or prior cross‑examination)
- Sanchez v. People, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (prosecution expert’s case‑specific out‑of‑court statements are hearsay; testimonial statements trigger Crawford protections)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality/varied opinions on whether expert basis evidence is admitted for truth; key in pre‑Sanchez foreseeability analysis)
- People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (2012) (California discussion of testimonial criteria: formality/solemnity and primary purpose tests)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (permitted experts to relate hearsay bases for opinions — later disapproved in Sanchez context)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (state procedural forfeiture rules may apply to confrontation objections)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Rangel, 62 Cal.4th 1192 (2016) (forfeiture excused where requiring contemporaneous objection would force defendants to anticipate unforeseeable changes in law)