People v. Franzen
210 Cal. App. 4th 1193
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant Yvette Franzen was convicted by a jury of selling methamphetamine.
- Franzen argues trial court erred in admitting an incriminating statement she made to a police officer, claimed as arising from custodial interrogation without Miranda warning.
- Franzen also argues the court should have sustained hearsay objection to evidence that a Web site identified her as the owner of a cell phone used in the sale.
- Detective Barry used Entersect to link a 650-area-code number to Franzen, and later matched it to a phone found on Franzen during arrest.
- The Entersect evidence was admitted under the published compilation exception to the hearsay rule (Evidence Code § 1340) but the court later found the foundation insufficient.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding the Miranda issue was resolved in Franzen’s favor, but the Entersect evidence was inadmissible and not prejudicial enough to alter the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statement to the officer was interrogation under Miranda | Franzen: statement obtained via custodial interrogation without warning. | Franzen: statement was volunteered, not elicited by interrogation. | No Miranda error; statement not the product of interrogation. |
| Whether Entersect evidence qualifies as a published compilation under §1340 | Prosecution: Entersect is a published compilation used in police work. | Franzen: Entersect is not a proper published compilation; foundation lacking; unreliable. | Entersect not a published compilation; insufficient foundation; not admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (Cal. 2010) (interrogation entails purposeful questioning; voluntary statements allowed)
- People v. Ray, 13 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 1996) (casual inquiries not interrogation when initiated by suspect)
- People v. Bradford, 14 Cal.4th 1005 (Cal. 1997) (offhand remarks and casual questions; subsequent interrogation)
- In re Michael G., 19 Cal.App.4th 1674 (Cal. App. 1990s) (limited use of published materials as exception to hearsay in certain contexts)
- Miller v. Modern Business Center, 195 Cal.App.3d 632 (Cal. App. 1983) (illustrates limits of §1340 published compilation foundation)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 116 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. App. 2004) (reliable data sources; consideration of publication reliability in §1340)