24 Cal.App.5th 405
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Late night January 4, 2015: McVey carried a loaded .22 handgun; after a bad drug deal he smashed a car’s windows, then later encountered homeless man Richard Miller and shot him multiple times; Miller died of gunshot wounds.
- Seven eyewitnesses said Miller made no threats or aggressive moves; one saw pushing/shoving; no weapon was found on Miller or near the scene.
- McVey testified Miller reached into his pocket, displayed a knife, and advanced, so McVey shot in self-defense (initially leg shots, then aimed higher when Miller allegedly lunged).
- After two trials and a granted new-trial motion based on late disclosure of Florida medical records and police reports about Miller, a third trial convicted McVey of voluntary manslaughter and felony vandalism; jury found firearm-use enhancement true.
- Defense sought to admit 1995–1997 Florida medical records (diagnosing paranoid schizophrenia, documenting psychotic/delusional behavior) and two Florida police reports showing prior aggressive encounters; trial court excluded them as inadmissible hearsay and barred expert testimony relying on them under People v. Sanchez.
- McVey also sought remand under Senate Bill No. 620 to permit the trial court to reconsider the firearm enhancement; the court declined because it had stated it would not have struck or reduced the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Florida medical records | People: records are inadmissible hearsay and lack proper business-records foundation | McVey: records are material and should be admitted to show victim’s schizophrenia and violent propensity | Excluded: no authentication or §1271/§1561 foundation; records unreliable and improperly admitted |
| Admissibility of Florida police reports | People: police reports are not business records and are hearsay created to aid prosecution | McVey: reports show past aggression relevant to self-defense claim | Excluded: police reports not within business-records exception and are hearsay under Sanchez |
| Expert testimony based on those records | People: Sanchez bars experts from relating case-specific hearsay not independently admissible | McVey: expert may rely on hearsay and present a hypothetical including those facts | Excluded: Sanchez forbids expert from testifying to case-specific hearsay; opinion would be irrelevant without admissible underlying facts |
| Remand for resentencing under SB 620 (discretion to strike firearm enhancement) | People: remand unnecessary because sentencing court made clear it would not strike enhancement | McVey: statute applies retroactively and requires remand for reconsideration | Denied: record shows trial court would not exercise new discretion; remand would be idle |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (limits expert reliance on case-specific hearsay; distinguishes general background from inadmissible case-specific facts)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (limits hearsay exceptions for documents prepared for litigation use, such as police reports)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (in limine rulings are not binding and may be altered during trial)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S. 2000) (trial judges may revisit prior evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Fuhrman, 16 Cal.4th 930 (Cal. 1997) (no remand required when sentencing court indicates it would not have exercised discretion to strike)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court discretion to strike prior convictions at sentencing)
- People v. Gutierrez, 48 Cal.App.4th 1894 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (remand unnecessary where record shows court would not have struck prior even if authorized)