People v. Foalima
239 Cal. App. 4th 1376
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Daniel Foalima was convicted of first degree murder after a night at the North Avenue Apartments ending in the victim Arun Singh’s death and a later arson; he challenges multiple trial rulings on appeal.
- Key evidence included surveillance footage placing Foalima at the complex; a knife with the victim’s DNA and other weapons were recovered nearby; the fire was incendiary in nature and allegedly intended to destroy evidence.
- Natalie Jackson, a cooperating witness, provided emails alleging Foalima’s involvement; she later recanted at trial and testified inconsistently about sources of information.
- Fine Tupuo testified in rebuttal under use immunity but largely stated he did not remember many details; the defense moved to strike, arguing loss of memory violated confrontation rights.
- The court instructed on accomplice testimony and admitted media-coverage evidence to impeach Jackson’s prior statements; Foalima was convicted of murder and received a 25-to-life term, plus restitution and fines.
- On appeal, Foalima contends several evidentiary and restitution rulings violated his rights or misapplied law; the court reverses none of the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tupuo’s memory-lapse testimony violated confrontation | People: memory loss still permits cross-examination and credibility assessment | Foalima: memory loss effectively bar the jury from cross-examining him | No violation; cross-examination preserved through demeanor and credibility assessment |
| Accomplice instruction viability and impact | People: sufficient evidence to treat Tupuo as an accomplice justifies the instruction | Foalima: instruction improperly lightened the burden and favored the state | Instruction properly given; does not lessen prosecution burden and protects defendant via corroboration |
| Admission of media coverage to impeach Jackson's testimony | People: relevant for impeachment; admissible to challenge Jackson’s claimed sources | Foalima: prejudicial and violates confrontation rights | Admissible for impeachment, not for truth; evidence not unduly prejudicial and constitutional rights not violated |
| Direct victim restitution for losses tied to arson and murder | People: proximate cause shows murder was the basis for damages; restitution permissible | Foalima: acquittal on arson forecloses restitution for that loss; Apprendi concerns | Proximate cause shown; direct restitution valid; Arguably not governed by Apprendi for direct restitution |
| Imposition of restitution fines without jury findings on pay-ability | People: trial court acted within statutory ranges; Apprendi does not apply to fines in this context | Foalima: due process requires jury determination for fines exceeding minimum | No jury trial required; court properly exercised discretion within statutory range and considered ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (confrontation rights and memory loss cross-examination standard)
- People v. Gunder, 151 Cal.App.4th 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (memory loss not equivalent to complete refusal to testify)
- People v. Lopez, 71 Cal.App.4th 1550 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (refusal to testify and inferences from refusal distinguished)
- People v. Murillo, 231 Cal.App.4th 448 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (refusal to answer leading questions; cross-examination context)
- People v. Tobias, 25 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 2001) (accomplice instruction when witness may be accomplice)
- People v. Guiuan, 18 Cal.4th 558 (Cal. 1998) (accomplice corroboration and jury instruction duties)
- People v. Whalen, 56 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2013) (principles of accomplice liability and jury evaluation)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975) (acquittal and restitution relationships; general restitution framework)
- People v. Holmberg, 195 Cal.App.4th 1310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (proximate cause in restitution and causation standards)
- People v. Jones, 187 Cal.App.4th 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (proximate cause; restitution scope following homicide)
- People v. Percelle, 126 Cal.App.4th 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (restoration of losses and scope of restitution)
- People v. Blacksher, 52 Cal.4th 769 (Cal. 2011) (confrontation principle and impeachment context)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (jury trial rights when increasing penalties)
- Southern U.S. v. Southern Union Co., No. 11-938 (Supreme Court 2012) (jury rights and monetary penalties limitations clarified)
- People v. Pangan, 213 Cal.App.4th 574 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (direct victim restitution not a criminal penalty)
- People v. Lai, 138 Cal.App.4th 1227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (limits on restitution to losses arising from the convicted conduct)
- People v. McCullough, 56 Cal.4th 589 (Cal. 2013) (forfeiture rule for failure to object at trial on booking fees)