People v. Marshall CA4/2, E074212

Victim (small stature) was sleeping in her car at ~3:00 a.m.; two men woke her, one later identified as Marshall, pulled her from the vehicle, searched it, and drove off in her car.
Victim spent ~20–30 minutes in close contact with the perpetrators, got a clear look at her assailant, and later identified Marshall from a photographic lineup.
During her 911 call (played to the jury) the victim reported the black man told her he had been "in prison" for "21 years." Defense unsuccessfully sought redaction of this statement before trial.
Marshall was arrested three days later driving the victim’s car; the victim’s possessions were missing and Marshall’s ID/phone were in the vehicle.
A jury convicted Marshall of carjacking; he received a 40-years-to-life sentence under California’s Three Strikes law and appealed, challenging (1) admission of the prison-reference under Evidence Code §352 and (2) the use of CALCRIM No. 315’s certainty factor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 911 statement that perpetrator had been "in prison 21 years" (Evid. Code §352)	People: statement was relevant to the fear/force element of carjacking and not unduly prejudicial	Marshall: statement was irrelevant to mistaken-identity defense and highly prejudicial propensity evidence	Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion — probative on fear element, limited prejudice, and any greater harm was due to defense counsel declining offered redaction; error not prejudicial given strong inculpatory evidence
Use of CALCRIM No. 315 eyewitness-identification instruction (certainty factor)	People: standard instruction properly allows jurors to consider witness certainty among other factors	Marshall: permitting jurors to consider witness certainty lowers due process protections and prejudices defendant	Court: Argument forfeited by failure to object; on merits rejected — Lemcke upholds CALCRIM No. 315 and the certainty factor does not violate due process

People v. Carter, 36 Cal.4th 1114 (2005) (trial courts have broad discretion on relevancy and admissibility)
People v. Alexander, 49 Cal.4th 846 (2010) (same: trial court deference on evidence rulings)
People v. Jablonski, 37 Cal.4th 774 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Whisenhunt, 44 Cal.4th 174 (2008) (defendant’s plea of not guilty does not relieve prosecution of proving all elements, including fear)
People v. Escudero, 183 Cal.App.4th 302 (2010) (prosecutor may introduce relevant evidence on elements even if defendant does not contest them)
People v. Ayala, 23 Cal.4th 225 (2000) (admission of prior-act evidence is not prejudicial when record convincingly points to guilt)
People v. Allen, 77 Cal.App.3d 924 (1978) (similar standard on prejudice and conviction strength)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (standard for harmless-error analysis in criminal cases)
People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (2016) (challenges to CALCRIM No. 315 are subject to forfeiture)
People v. Lemcke, 11 Cal.5th 644 (2021) (Supreme Court: CALCRIM No. 315’s certainty factor does not violate due process)
People v. Lopez, 198 Cal.App.4th 698 (2011) (example of prejudicial prior-act evidence where type of prior crime was revealed)
McKinney v. Rees, 993 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1993) (example of admission of inflammatory prior-weapon-use details raising prejudice concerns)