People v. Iraheta
B261606
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Defendant Carlos Iraheta shot into an occupied Honda on Dec. 20, 2002; the shot killed Michael Orozco. A gun was found in Iraheta’s Camaro; ballistic testing matched the fatal bullet.
- At retrial the prosecution relied heavily on gang evidence and a gang expert (Officer Barragan) who opined Iraheta was an Inglewood 13 member based on tattoos, an “I” belt buckle, phone contacts, and FI (field identification) cards showing others’ self‑admissions.
- Defense asserted the shooting was in self‑defense (Iraheta feared Orozco/others had a gun) and denied gang membership; defense challenged admission of FI‑card‑based and other case‑specific hearsay relied upon by the gang expert.
- Procedurally: Iraheta’s earlier conviction was reversed; on remand the People added a substantive §246 (shooting at an occupied vehicle) count and firearm enhancements; Iraheta was convicted of §246 with enhancements and sentenced to 30 years‑to‑life.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that admission of case‑specific hearsay (FI cards and related statements) as the basis for the gang expert’s opinion violated California evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause under People v. Sanchez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang expert testimony based on FI cards and officers’ out‑of‑court statements | Expert may explain basis for opinion; gang evidence was relevant to motive and identity | FI cards and case‑specific hearsay were testimonial or otherwise inadmissible hearsay and deprived Iraheta of confrontation rights | Reversed: Sanchez requires exclusion of case‑specific hearsay used as the basis for an expert’s opinion unless independently proven or covered by an exception; FI‑card evidence here violated confrontation/hearsay rules and was prejudicial |
| Relevance/prejudice of gang evidence under Evid. Code §352 (and law‑of‑the‑case) | Gang evidence was highly relevant to motive; prior appellate rulings upheld relevance | Admission was more prejudicial than probative | Law‑of‑the‑case barred relitigation of relevance claim; court found relevance but ruled constitutional hearsay error required reversal |
| Vindictive prosecution (adding §246 after successful appeal) | Amendment was justified by changed law (People v. Chun) and did not increase potential punishment | Adding §246 after appeal was retaliatory and deprived defendant of defenses | No presumption of vindictiveness: §246 is less serious than murder, addition followed intervening change in law, and did not increase potential punishment |
| Statute of limitations for added §246 count | The §246 charge was time‑barred (filed >3 years after offense) | Original timely murder information tolled limitations under §803(b) because the charges arose from the same conduct | Held that §803(b) tolled the statute of limitations for the §246 count because the original prosecution for the same conduct was pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Sixth Amendment bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent opportunity for confrontation)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (expert may not relate case‑specific hearsay as true basis for opinion; testimonial FI cards may violate confrontation)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (2009) (felony‑murder rule cannot be based on certain assaultive underlying felonies, prompting charge adjustments)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (pre‑Sanchez rule allowing experts to state hearsay basis for opinion; later clarified/overruled in part by Sanchez)