People v. Parker CA2/1
B303463
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Defendant Kedrick Parker was retried in Nov. 2019 on counts including human trafficking and pimping (adult A.C.), pimping and human trafficking of a minor (W.S.), failure to register as a sex offender, and related charges after a prior mistrial on some counts; he had a prior “strike.”
- On June 3, 2016 law enforcement stopped Parker, recovered A.C.’s ID and SS card, and recorded two interviews of A.C. in which she described being controlled, beaten, tattooed with Parker’s name/crown, stripped of earnings/phones, and monitored via codes for dates.
- After arrest, jail calls show Parker instructed others to contact A.C. and to persuade her not to testify; three-way calls and subsequent calls were recorded; A.C. later left the state and did not appear at trial.
- The trial court held a due-diligence hearing, found A.C. unavailable, admitted her July 6, 2016 preliminary-hearing testimony, and admitted her recorded statements to police under hearsay exceptions including forfeiture-by-wrongdoing.
- W.S. (aka Ruby) was located and testified at trial that she was 16 at the time she worked for Parker; electronic evidence and texts corroborated aspects of the prosecution’s trafficking/pimping theory.
- Jury convicted Parker on the retried counts; court sentenced him to 34 years 8 months. Parker appealed raising four principal evidentiary and instructional claims; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Parker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of A.C.’s preliminary-hearing testimony as former testimony (unavailability/due diligence) | People: investigators made reasonable, timely efforts (database searches, out-of-state DA coordination, door knocks, messages); A.C. was evading service | Parker: prosecution failed to show due diligence (no USPS contact, no surveillance at suspected address) | Court: no error — substantial evidence supports unavailability and due diligence; admission proper |
| Admission of A.C.’s recorded statements to police under hearsay exceptions (esp. forfeiture-by-wrongdoing) | People: forfeiture-by-wrongdoing applies because Parker’s jail calls and conduct intended to and did procure A.C.’s unavailability | Parker: admission violated confrontation clause because the statements were testimonial and he had no prior chance to cross-examine A.C. about them | Court: admitted under §1390 forfeiture doctrine; substantial evidence Parker intended to and caused unavailability; admission not erroneous |
| Sua sponte duty to instruct on misdemeanor false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of human trafficking | People: no instruction required because evidence did not substantially support only false imprisonment | Parker: false imprisonment is a lesser included of §236.1(a); court should have instructed the jury | Court: no error — evidence did not provide substantial support that only misdemeanor false imprisonment, not trafficking, occurred |
| Foundation for testimony about W.S.’s age (W.S. and Detective Gore) | People: W.S.’s testimony about her birthdate and age was proper foundation; corroborated by her history and investigative records | Parker: lack of foundation for W.S.’s age testimony and for Detective Gore’s age testimony | Court: even if any foundation error as to the detective existed, W.S.’s own testimony provided sufficient evidence of age; no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sánchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (discussing due diligence for admitting former testimony)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine rationale)
- People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal.App.5th 852 (application of forfeiture-by-wrongdoing standard)
- People v. Kerley, 23 Cal.App.5th 513 (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing elements: intent and causation)
- People v. Merchant, 40 Cal.App.5th 1179 (standard of review for forfeiture findings)
- People v. Quintanilla, 45 Cal.App.5th 1039 (abuse of discretion review on admission)
- People v. Diaz, 95 Cal.App.4th 695 (limits on prosecutorial obligation to continuously track witnesses)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (standard for lesser-included-offense instructions)
- People v. Montalvo, 4 Cal.3d 328 (age testimony and evidentiary foundations)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless-error standard)