History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Lena
A138474
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • In Feb 1999 officers in Corte Madera encountered Michael Lena, who fled, pointed a gun at pursuing officers, and later escaped to Canada where a shootout led to his capture; guns and stolen passports were found in his vehicles in both countries. Lena was later returned to California and prosecuted for the Maassen residential burglary, assault on peace officers, and felon-in-possession, among other counts.
  • Police recovered firearms and passports in Lena’s car/truck that matched items stolen in five separate Bay Area residential burglaries (and other nearby break-ins); one passport was stolen from the charged Maassen burglary and was found in Lena’s car the same day.
  • Lena represented himself at trial, testified in his defense with a conspiracy theory that officers planted the evidence, but refused to answer any cross-examination questions. The trial court warned him multiple times and ultimately struck his entire testimony for refusal to submit to cross-examination.
  • The People sought to admit testimony about five uncharged burglaries under Evidence Code § 1101(b) to show intent, motive, and common plan; the trial court admitted them for those limited purposes (but not for identity), over Lena’s later claim that there was insufficient preliminary proof he committed them.
  • On appeal Lena challenged (1) the striking of his testimony as an excessive sanction and (2) admission of the uncharged-burglary evidence (both for lack of preliminary proof and under § 352/due process). The Court of Appeal affirmed on both grounds.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (People) Defendant's Argument (Lena) Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by striking defendant’s entire testimony for refusing cross-examination Court may sanction a witness who refuses cross-examination; striking is appropriate where refusal is categorical and materially impedes truth-seeking Striking all testimony was too drastic; court should have considered less severe sanctions or partial striking Affirmed: no abuse. Court gave warnings, considered alternatives, and Lena’s blanket refusal made less drastic options impractical
Whether uncharged burglaries were admissible under Evid. Code § 1101(b) (preliminary fact of connection) Possession of fruits of burglaries plus similarities among crimes suffice to show a connection allowing jury to consider uncharged acts for intent, motive, common plan Insufficient preliminary evidence that Lena committed the uncharged burglaries; possession was too remote in time Affirmed: prosecutor’s offer of proof (stolen items found in Lena’s vehicles) and crime similarities met threshold to send to jury
Whether Lena preserved a § 352 objection to admission of uncharged-burglary evidence Any § 352 concerns are misplaced because defendant expressly told court to admit all such evidence and thus invited it Admission was prejudicial and should have been excluded under § 352 Affirmed: defendant forfeited § 352 challenge by inviting admission; appellate review not required
Whether admission of uncharged crimes violated due process (Chapman) Even if erroneous, evidence of guilt was overwhelming and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt Admission of dissimilar crimes was unduly prejudicial and violated due process Affirmed: any error would be harmless under Chapman given overwhelming evidence and weak, implausible defense

Key Cases Cited

  • Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (constitutional right to present a defense and testify)
  • People v. Reynolds, 152 Cal.App.3d 42 (trial court may consider lesser sanctions before striking testimony)
  • People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (preponderance standard for preliminary fact linking defendant to uncharged offenses under § 1101(b))
  • People v. Leon, 61 Cal.4th 569 (distinguishing admissibility threshold from sufficiency to convict; uncharged acts may be considered for intent)
  • Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional error)
  • People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless-error standard for state-law errors)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Lena
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Feb 22, 2017
Docket Number: A138474
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.