People v. Garcia, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558

Defendant Richard Garcia was convicted by jury of first-degree residential burglary and admitted one prior strike, one prison prior, and one prior serious felony; sentenced to 14 years (including a mandatory consecutive 5-year enhancement under former Penal Code § 667(a)).
Eyewitness Knowles saw a black vehicle leaving the victim Clark’s home and later (hesitantly) identified defendant from a six-photo array; Knowles could read the license plate, which matched defendant’s vehicle registration.
Co-defendant Kemp pled guilty; GPS and ankle monitor data placed Kemp at the scene and later at defendant’s home; Kemp admitted using a blue crowbar to enter the home.
Defendant made jail calls suggesting concern about fingerprint evidence and attempts to procure alibi/witness statements for himself and to influence Kemp’s statements.
Defense sought to admit Dr. Robert Shomer as an expert on eyewitness identification reliability; the trial court excluded the testimony under Evidence Code § 352, finding substantial corroboration of the identification and that the expert would consume undue time and add little assistance beyond jury instructions (CALCRIM No. 315).
On appeal the court affirmed the exclusion and conviction, but remanded for resentencing under S.B. 1393 (effective Jan 1, 2019) which gives trial courts discretion to strike prior serious-felony enhancements; the remand applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments.

Issue	People’s Argument	Garcia’s Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness ID denied defendant a fair trial	Expert unnecessary because identification was substantially corroborated by independent evidence (vehicle registration, Kemp’s guilty plea and GPS, jail calls, witness threats)	Excluding Dr. Shomer abused discretion and violated due process by preventing expert explanation of factors undermining Knowles’s ID	Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion or a due process violation; other evidence substantially corroborated the ID and jurors were properly instructed; any error was harmless
Whether appellate court must remand for resentencing under S.B. 1393	S.B.1393 should apply retroactively only if judgment not final; People argued remand may be premature if judgment becomes final by Jan 1, 2019	S.B.1393 applies retroactively to all nonfinal judgments and trial court should have discretion to strike prior serious-felony enhancement	Remand required: S.B.1393 is ameliorative and (absent contrary legislative intent) applies to cases not final on Jan 1, 2019; resentencing ordered after that date

People v. McDonald, 37 Cal.3d 351 (expert eyewitness-ID testimony admissible when ID is key and not substantially corroborated)
People v. Jones, 30 Cal.4th 1084 (trial court discretion on admission of eyewitness-ID experts; McDonald framework)
People v. Goodwillie, 147 Cal.App.4th 695 (assessing corroboration of eyewitness ID and § 352 balancing)
People v. Cornwell, 37 Cal.4th 50 (exclusion of evidence under ordinary rules generally does not violate right to present a defense)
People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (ameliorative sentencing changes inferred to apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative Penal statutes apply to nonfinal judgments absent contrary legislative intent)