C088686
Cal. Ct. App.Feb 28, 2022Background
- Defendant David Froste (then 25) and accomplices murdered two teenage victims (E.R., 16; E.M., 17) after being robbed of marijuana; one killing involved shooting and the other involved kidnapping, blunt-force trauma, and burning of remains.
- Participants included an older accomplice (19), a younger accomplice (16), and defendant’s brother (19); the brother later cooperated and pleaded to second-degree murder.
- The younger accomplice made multiple out‑of‑court admissions to friends and to a jail informant describing participation and identifying defendant as ringleader/shooter; those statements were admitted at trial.
- Jury convicted Froste of first‑ and second‑degree murder, kidnapping, and found a multiple‑murder special circumstance; sentence included life without parole and an 8‑year upper term for kidnapping.
- On appeal Froste raised three claims: (1) erroneous admission of the younger accomplice’s hearsay statements under Evidence Code §1230, (2) trial court abused discretion by refusing an evidentiary hearing into alleged juror misconduct, and (3) punishment for kidnapping must be stayed under Penal Code §654.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, ruled the hearsay admission and refusal to hold a juror‑misconduct hearing were not erroneous, but modified the judgment to stay punishment for the kidnapping under §654.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Froste’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of younger accomplice’s out‑of‑court statements (Evid. Code §1230) | Statements were against declarant’s penal interest, declarant unavailable, and sufficiently reliable; properly admitted | Statements were self‑serving, shifted blame to Froste, and lacked indicia of reliability (pressure to minimize own guilt) | Admission within trial court’s discretion; appellate court affirmed (statements were disserving and trustworthy in context) |
| Forfeiture / counsel conduct re: statements to friend | Defense failed to preserve contemporaneous objection; People invoke forfeiture | Raises ineffective assistance alternative and asks appellate review on merits | Court considered merits (ineffective‑assistance claim preserved for consideration) and upheld admission |
| Refusal to order evidentiary hearing after post‑verdict press interview alleging juror misconduct | No strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct; article statements speculative and largely duplicated trial evidence | Article indicates juror retranslated Spanish, juror local knowledge, and a doctor‑juror injected expertise — warrant hearing | No abuse of discretion; trial court properly denied hearing because allegations were speculative or matched trial evidence and showed no prejudice |
| Penal Code §654 stay for kidnapping sentence | People conceded kidnapping was incidental to murder and punishment should be stayed | Kidnapping was continuous with the murder and part of same objective (intent to kill) | §654 bars multiple punishment for kidnapping here; judgment modified to stay kidnapping term |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chhoun, 11 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2021) (articulates standards for admission under Evidence Code §1230 — availability, disserving nature, trustworthiness)
- People v. Duarte, 24 Cal.4th 603 (Cal. 2000) (distinguishes statements that are primarily self‑serving and thus insufficiently disserving/trustworthy)
- People v. Grimes, 1 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2016) (portions of confessions not independently disserving may be admissible if inextricably tied to a statement against penal interest)
- People v. Samuels, 36 Cal.4th 96 (Cal. 2005) (admissions shifting blame can still be disserving and admissible)
- People v. Greenberger, 58 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (statements showing declarant’s own presence or role in a homicide are disserving)
- People v. Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 731 (Cal. 2009) (trial court discretion and standards for ordering juror‑misconduct evidentiary hearings)
- People v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395 (Cal. 1990) (hearing only when defense shows strong possibility of prejudicial juror misconduct; no fishing expeditions)
- People v. Correa, 54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012) (§654 bars multiple punishment for the same course of conduct unless multiple independent objectives are shown)
- In re Malone, 12 Cal.4th 935 (Cal. 1996) (juror application of personal expertise permissible so long as opinion is based on trial evidence)