People v. Hill
191 Cal. App. 4th 1104
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officer Espinoza was killed and Officer Parker wounded during an undercover Bayview patrol when appellant Hill opened fire with an assault rifle.
- Hill was convicted of second degree murder with a peace officer special circumstance and firearm enhancements, attempted murder, assault on a peace officer, and possession of an assault weapon with a gang enhancement.
- Sentences included life without parole on count 1 and life with parole on count 2, with various consecutive sentences and a section 669 ordering.
- The key contested evidence concerned gang expert Inspector Chaplin’s testimony about Bayview gang dynamics and motives, including basis evidence from out-of-court statements.
- The trial court admitted Chaplin’s testimony and basis evidence, ruling statements were not offered for their truth; the court later issued limiting instructions; on appeal, the conviction was affirmed.
- The appellate court agreed with the trial court on Chaplin’s qualifications and the general admissibility of gang-related testimony, but noted disagreement with Thomas-style analysis and discussed potential Goldstein implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of basis evidence for Chaplin's opinions | Hill contends basis statements were admitted for truth in violation of Crawford. | Hill argues statements are admissible as basis evidence to evaluate opinions under Gardeley/Thomas. | Evidence admitted as basis testimony upheld; Crawford constraints acknowledged but follow Thomas. |
| Chaplin's qualifications as a gang expert | Hill challenges Chaplin’s expertise as broader than Bayview gang culture. | Hill concedes expertise on Bayview gangs; argues some opinions exceed scope. | Court affirmatively finds Chaplin qualified to address gang culture, motivations, and retaliatory dynamics. |
| Reliability of sources underlying Chaplin's opinions | Hill argues reliance on hearsay and unknown sources undermines reliability. | Chaplin’s experience and corroboration support reliability under Evidence Code 801(b). | Reliability found; sources properly foundational to Chaplin’s opinions. |
| Admissibility of Stepney plea agreement as testimonial evidence | Hill argues Stepney’s plea is testimonial and its admission violated confrontation clause. | Stepney’s statements are not admitted for truth; Crawford constraints interplay recognized. | Stepney plea agreement treated as testimonial; admission deemed harmless error under Chapman. |
| Prejudice from admitting 14 gang-related shootings | Hill alleges undue prejudice and cumulative effect, outweighing probative value. | The evidence is probative to establish gang rivalry and motive for weapon possession. | Watson standard applied; any error deemed harmless given overwhelming evidence of gang warfare and appellant’s guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (basis evidence may be used to evaluate expert opinions, not as truth)
- People v. Thomas, 130 Cal.App.4th 1202 (2005) (basis evidence used to evaluate opinion, not admitted for truth)
- People v. Gonzalez, 38 Cal.4th 932 (2006) (gang sociology is proper expert testimony)
- People v. Cage, 40 Cal.4th 965 (2007) (confrontation clause and testimonial definitions in Crawford context)
- People v. Geier, 41 Cal.4th 555 (2007) (DNA testimony; interaction with hearsay and testimonial analysis)