People v. Meraz
6 Cal. App. 5th 1162
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Three defendants (Meraz, Chambasis, Bibiano) — all alleged Terra Bella gang members — were retried and convicted of two murders, one attempted murder, and discharging a firearm into an inhabited dwelling after a gang-related daytime shooting in Project Boys territory that killed two and severely injured a third. All gang and multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations and related enhancements were found true; heavy indeterminate sentences were imposed. Appeals followed and the Supreme Court transferred the matter for reconsideration in light of People v. Sanchez.
- Shooting occurred shortly after a prior homicide (Terra Bella member Villa was killed by a Project Boys member), and eyewitnesses and victims identified the three appellants at or soon after the scene; physical evidence and phone records corroborated movements and statements suggesting flight and gang involvement.
- The prosecution presented Officer Tyler Adams as a gang expert. He testified to Terra Bella’s size, symbols, criminal activities, rivalry with Project Boys, and opined the shooting was retaliatory and in association with Terra Bella. He also relied on and discussed FI cards and an arrest report, some completed by other officers.
- Defendants objected on appeal that Adams’s testimony improperly relayed case‑specific out‑of‑court statements (testimonial hearsay) in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause as interpreted in Crawford and clarified in People v. Sanchez.
- The court concluded much of Adams’s background/opinion testimony (general gang history, operations, rivalry, and non‑case‑specific patterns) was admissible and non‑testimonial; a narrow portion — testimony based on FI cards and an out‑of‑court arrest report prepared by others — implicated Sanchez and was barred, but its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The judgments were modified to strike a specified gang enhancement and certain fines, correct presentence custody credits, and to impose court fees/assessments; otherwise the convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gang expert may relate case‑specific out‑of‑court statements without violating Confrontation Clause | Prosecution: expert may give general background and opinions based on training and personal contacts; case‑specific hearsay not relied upon in a testimonial manner | Defendants: Adams relied on testimonial, case‑specific hearsay (FI cards, arrest reports, statements by gang members and officers) that they could not cross‑examine, violating Crawford/Sanchez | Court: General background and opinion testimony admissible; case‑specific statements memorialized by other officers (FI cards/arrest report) were barred under Sanchez/Crawford but limited to a narrow portion of testimony |
| Whether FI cards and out‑of‑court arrest report were testimonial hearsay and thus inadmissible | Prosecution: FI cards are investigative tools and Adams had some personal contacts; their admission did not violate Confrontation Clause | Defendants: FI cards and arrest report were produced in investigations and memorialized facts for later use — testimonial and inadmissible absent declarant cross‑examination | Court: Arrest report was testimonial; FI cards close enough to be treated as testimonial for analysis; their admission violated confrontation principles but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prejudice: whether erroneous admission of barred testimony requires reversal | Prosecution: other overwhelming evidence of gang membership and retaliatory motive made any error harmless | Defendants: testimony was important to gang‑enhancement and motive proof, so error was prejudicial | Court: Error harmless — strong independent evidence (admissions, tattoos, attire, eyewitness IDs, recorded statements, context of retaliation) rendered the Confrontation Clause error nonprejudicial |
| Sentencing and judgment corrections on appeal | N/A (appellate corrections requested) | Defendants sought corrections to sentencing and custody credits | Court: Modified judgments — struck a section 186.22(b)(1) enhancement, struck a parole‑revocation fine, adjusted custody credits and imposed court security and criminal conviction assessments; affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (clarifies that expert testimony conveying case‑specific out‑of‑court statements treated as true is hearsay and, if testimonial, violates the Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes testimonial hearsay cannot be admitted against a defendant absent prior opportunity for cross‑examination or unavailability)
- People v. Valadez, 220 Cal.App.4th 16 (distinguishes admissible general gang background testimony from impermissible case‑specific hearsay for experts)
- People v. Taulton, 129 Cal.App.4th 1218 (records of convictions and imprisonment are not testimonial under Crawford)