People v. McVey
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 915
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Late-night encounter (Jan 4, 2015): McVey purchased what he believed was cocaine (actually sugar), smashed a suspected seller's car, then later shot homeless man Richard Miller multiple times; Miller died of gunshot wounds. McVey admitted firing; claimed self-defense/fear.
- Trial history: First trial deadlocked on murder; conviction on vandalism. Second retrial found McVey guilty of voluntary manslaughter; court granted a new trial after defense obtained 1995–1998 Florida medical records and police reports suggesting Miller had paranoid schizophrenia and prior aggressive contacts with police. Third trial followed.
- Evidence at issue: Florida medical records (diagnosing paranoid schizophrenia, institutional behavior) and two Florida police reports describing aggressive encounters ~20 years earlier; records lacked proper custodial certification and some originals were purged.
- Lower court rulings: Trial judge excluded the Florida medical records and police reports as inadmissible hearsay under the business‑records rule and People v. Sanchez; barred the defense psychiatric expert from testifying about those documents. Earlier judge’s grant of a new trial was based solely on late disclosure, not on admissibility determinations.
- Sentence/remedy issue: McVey received 6-year midterm for voluntary manslaughter plus a 10-year firearm enhancement and 8 months consecutive for vandalism (aggregate 16 years 8 months). McVey sought remand under Senate Bill No. 620 to allow the court to reconsider striking the firearm enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | McVey's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Florida medical records | Records show Miller had paranoid schizophrenia and prior aggression; relevant to self‑defense and impeachment; should be admitted | Records unauthenticated, destroyed at source, no custodian affidavit; fail business‑records foundation | Excluded: records inadmissible under business‑records hearsay exception for lack of foundation |
| Admissibility of Florida police reports | Reports show prior aggressive contacts and support expert opinion; should be admissible | Police reports are not business records for trial evidence and lack authentication; unreliable hearsay | Excluded: police reports inadmissible as business records and as case‑specific hearsay |
| Expert testimony based on those documents | Expert may rely on hearsay and describe in general terms or answer hypotheticals incorporating case facts | Under People v. Sanchez, expert cannot relate or rely on case‑specific hearsay that is not independently admissible | Excluded: Sanchez bars expert from testifying to case‑specific hearsay in the documents; expert opinion would be irrelevant without underlying admissible facts |
| Remand for resentencing under SB 620 (discretion to strike firearm enhancement) | SB 620 applies retroactively; remand required so trial court can exercise new discretion to strike the enhancement | Record shows sentencing judge expressly chose the maximum enhancement and would not have struck it; remand would be futile | Denied: no remand because trial court's comments make clear it would not have struck the firearm enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (limits expert testimony relying on case‑specific hearsay; distinguishes general background hearsay)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (documents prepared for prosecution or trial by law‑enforcement are not covered by business‑records hearsay exception)
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (in limine rulings are not binding and trial judges may change evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court discretion to strike prior conviction allegations; sentencing courts must consider but need not strike)
- People v. Fuhrman, 16 Cal.4th 930 (Cal. 1997) (no remand required where record shows trial court would not have exercised discretion to strike even if authorized)