People v. Lara CA4/3
G048951
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 4, 2014Background
- James and David Lara were charged in Riverside with carjacking and unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle; James also faced meth possession, receiving a stolen car, and gang participation, while David faced making a criminal threat and related knife allegations.
- Jury convictions: James convicted of meth possession, receiving a stolen car, and unlawful taking; acquitted of carjacking and active gang participation; David convicted of carjacking and making a criminal threat; knife-use enhancement was declared a mistrial.
- Both defendants admitted prior strike allegations; James sentenced to 26 years to life; David sentenced to 20 years and four months.
- Evidence issue: the trial admitted two jailhouse telephone calls by James at David’s trial; Crawford/Bruton arguments raised by David.
- Proposition 36/1170.126 retroactivity: court held Reform Act applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments, entitling James to resentencing; remanded for resentencing.
- Section 654: trial court ordered separate sentences for carjacking and criminal threats; this was conceded and the sentence for threats was stayed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary error from jail calls | Lara; Aranda/Bruton apply to bar co‑defendant statements | Lara; Crawford overrides Bruton for non-testimonial statements | No Bruton violation; statements admissible and harmless |
| Retroactivity of Proposition 36 | Reform Act retroactive under Estrada to benefit nonfinal judgments | Retroactivity limited or prospective? (argues limited) | Reform Act retroactive; remand for James' resentencing |
| Section 654 stay for carjacking and threats | Separable offenses with different aims; multiple punishments valid | Stay imposed for counts involving threats; sentences to be modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518 (Cal. 1965) (Confrontation/ hearsay for non-testimonial statements)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (Out-of-court co‑defendant statements and Bruton concerns)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
- People v. Loy, 52 Cal.4th 46 (Cal. 2011) (Confrontation clause—non-testimonial statements not protected)
- People v. Arceo, 195 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. App. 2011) (Confrontation clause does not apply to non-testimonial statements)
- People v. Gutierrez, 45 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2009) (Confrontation clause limits on testimonial hearsay)