People v. Gallardo
18 Cal. App. 5th 51
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- On Nov. 8, 2013, a drive-by shooting in Compton left Raul Rodriguez dead and two others injured; police linked four suspects (Angel Gallardo, Michael Gallardo, Smith Garcia, Felipe Ramos) via surveillance, cell-site data, and a handgun found at a residence.
- Angel was recorded in jail after being placed with two paid informants who posed as inmates; the recording contained multiple versions of Angel’s account, at times implicating Garcia as the shooter and Michael as the driver while Angel described himself as a getaway driver.
- The trial court admitted the entire recorded jailhouse conversation against all defendants as declarations against penal interest (Evid. Code § 1230); Ramos’s custodial statement to police was also admitted but limited to use against Ramos.
- Jury convictions: Garcia convicted of first-degree murder (with firearm enhancements) and related counts; Angel and Michael convicted of second-degree murder and related counts; jury deadlocked as to Ramos.
- On appeal, Garcia and Michael challenged admission of Angel’s statements under Crawford/Bruton and the declarations-against-interest exception; Angel challenged exclusion under Penal Code § 4001.1 and the attempted premeditated murder instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Angel’s jailhouse tape under Confrontation Clause (Crawford/Bruton) | Tape is testimonial because informants were used to elicit statements for prosecution; Bruton protects co-defendants from incriminating co-defendant statements | Tape was nontestimonial because Angel did not know informants were government agents or that statements would be used at trial; Cortez limits Bruton to testimonial statements | Tape was nontestimonial; Crawford/Bruton not violated (admission did not breach Confrontation Clause) |
| Admission under declaration-against-penal-interest (Evid. Code § 1230) | Statements identifying Garcia as shooter and Michael as driver were sufficiently against Angel’s penal interest to be admissible | Trial court properly admitted the whole conversation as sufficiently reliable and self-inculpatory | Reversed as to Garcia and Michael: key portions (identifying Garcia as shooter and Michael as driver) were not specifically disserving, were self-serving, prompted by informants, and therefore inadmissible; error prejudicial |
| Application of Penal Code § 4001.1 (use of in-custody informants) | Angel: the recording should be excluded because law enforcement deliberately elicited incriminating remarks by hiring informants | State: § 4001.1 codifies Sixth Amendment/Massiah line and is offense-specific; statements here concerned uncharged offenses at the time, so statute inapplicable | Affirmed as to Angel on § 4001.1: statute (and Massiah progeny) do not bar elicitation about uncharged offenses; § 4001.1 inapplicable here |
| Admission of Ramos’s custodial statement (Bruton risk) | Co-defendants argued Ramos’s statements (about gray Explorer, following a white Expedition) implicated them | Prosecution: Ramos’s statements are not facially incriminating; any incrimination depends on linking other evidence | No Bruton error: Ramos’s statements were not facially incriminating and became inculpatory only when linked to other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay rule under Confrontation Clause)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (facially incriminating co-defendant statements at joint trial)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (Sixth Amendment prohibits deliberate elicitation after right to counsel attaches)
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (distinguishing passive listening by informant from deliberate elicitation)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (limits on admitting portions of confessions as declarations against interest)
- People v. Duarte, 24 Cal.4th 603 (statement-against-interest exception requires statement itself be specifically disserving)
- People v. Grimes, 1 Cal.5th 698 (recent guidance on admissibility and reliability under § 1230)
- People v. Cortez, 63 Cal.4th 101 (Crawford narrows Bruton; nontestimonial accomplice statements do not trigger Confrontation Clause)
- People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613 (aider/abettor may be subject to § 664(a) enhanced penalty based on perpetrator’s premeditation)
- People v. Favor, 54 Cal.4th 868 (applies Lee to natural and probable consequences context for penalty provision)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (distinguishes Lee/Favor for first-degree murder liability under natural and probable consequences doctrine)