28 Cal.App.5th 961
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Richard Garcia was convicted by jury of first-degree residential burglary; he admitted a prior strike and a prior serious felony, and received a 14-year sentence (four-year middle term doubled for strike, +5 years for prior serious felony, +1 year prison prior).
- Eyewitness Richard Knowles saw a black vehicle leaving the victim’s home and a Hispanic man among occupants; Knowles read the license plate which matched defendant’s registered Chevrolet Blazer, but at trial he was hesitant and uncertain identifying Garcia from a photo lineup.
- Co-defendant Joshua Kemp pled guilty; GPS and ankle monitor records placed Kemp at the scene and later at defendant’s home; Kemp admitted using a blue crowbar; Knowles later (with uncertainty) identified Kemp from a photo lineup.
- Defense sought to present Dr. Robert Shomer as an expert on eyewitness-identification reliability; prosecution moved to exclude. The trial court excluded the expert under Evidence Code §352, finding other evidence substantially corroborated the identification and expert testimony would be cumulative and time-consuming.
- On appeal Garcia challenged exclusion of the expert (and argued due-process denial). The court affirmed the exclusion as within discretion and harmless, but remanded for resentencing under S.B. 1393 to allow the trial court discretion to strike the prior serious-felony enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness ID | Exclude: Knowles’s ID was substantially corroborated (vehicle registered to Garcia, Kemp’s involvement corroborated by GPS/plea, jail calls, etc.) and expert would be cumulative and time-consuming | Admit: Expert testimony on psychological factors affecting ID reliability was necessary to inform jury and present defense; exclusion violated due process | Court: Exclusion was within trial court’s §352 discretion; corroborating evidence reduced probative value; any error harmless |
| Due process right to present a defense | No constitutional violation because ordinary evidentiary rules apply; defendant could argue unreliability and jury received CALCRIM No. 315 | Expert testimony was essential to adequately present defense on ID reliability | Court: No due process violation; jury had instruction and evidence showing uncertainty; expert not indispensible |
| Harmlessness of exclusion | Exclusion harmless given corroborating evidence and jury instructions | Admission might have changed outcome by explaining psychological ID pitfalls | Court: Any error was harmless (People v. Watson standard) |
| Retroactive application of S.B. 1393 (resentencing) | S.B. 1393 should apply to nonfinal judgments; remand for resentencing so trial court may consider striking prior serious-felony enhancement | If judgment becomes final before SB 1393 effective, defendant not entitled; claim maybe unripe | Court: SB 1393 is ameliorative and applies to all nonfinal judgments when effective; remand for resentencing after Jan 1, 2019 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McDonald, 37 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1984) (expert testimony on psychological factors affecting eyewitness ID admissible when ID is key and not substantially corroborated)
- People v. Jones, 30 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2003) (McDonald framework; exclusion justified if eyewitness ID is substantially corroborated)
- People v. Goodwillie, 147 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (assessing probative value of ID-expert testimony against §352 concerns)
- People v. Cornwell, 37 Cal.4th 50 (Cal. 2005) (ordinary evidentiary exclusions do not typically violate right to present a defense)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (ameliorative sentencing changes inferred to apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal statutes generally apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)