People v. Murillo
231 Cal. App. 4th 448
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Murillo convicted of first degree murder, two attempted murders, and gun possession by felon; verdict included gang enhancements; Valencia, a key eyewitness, refused to answer most questions after being shown leading questions by the prosecutor; trial court allowed extensive leading questions and display of lineups and statements; Valencia’s silence impaired Murillo’s cross-examination right; DNA touch DNA evidence tied to Murillo but vulnerable to prejudice from examination; jurors later asked for clarifications and the court acknowledged Valencia’s effect on trial fairness; conviction reversed for retrial considerations and sentencing issue noted as moot if retrial occurs.
- Valencia’s testimony pivoted on pretrial statements and photographs; the jury saw documents and photographs tied to Valencia’s statements; trial court instructed that questions were not evidence; Valencia never answered most questions, impairing cross-examination and confrontation rights.
- DNA and fingerprint evidence were presented amid a challenged cross-examination, with jurors seeking clarifications on weather and other conditions; the court limited the record readback and did not augment it, contributing to prejudice.
- The appellate court found the mistrial denial improper due to confrontation violation; the court suggested remedies including outside-the-jury hearing, contempt power, or stipulations to mitigate prejudice; the case requires reversal for potential retrial, and the gang enhancement sentencing error is moot but noted.
- The disposition is reversal of the judgment; the matter is certified for publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extensive leading questions violated confrontation rights | Murillo | Murillo | Yes, prejudicial and improper |
| Whether denial of mistrial was reversible error | Murillo | Murillo | Yes, incurable prejudice from Valencia’s examination |
| Appropriate remedy for the confrontation error | Murillo | Murillo | Remand with option to limit questioning or hold hearing outside jury; consider stipulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires cross-examining witnesses; prior statements limited if witness testifies)
- Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1965) (Codefendant confession read to jury; cross-examination importance)
- People v. Dement, 53 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2011) (Abuse of discretion on mistrial; curable versus incurable prejudice)
- People v. Shipe, 49 Cal.App.3d 343 (Cal. App. 1975) (Leading questions about confessions; confrontation impact)
- People v. Morgain, 177 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. App. 2009) (Limited leading questions; admissibility of related testimony and immunity)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (Harmless error standard for constitutional violations)