People v. Roldan
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Barrera was shot on December 28, 2006; he testified at a preliminary hearing and was later deported to Mexico before trial.
- The prosecution sought to admit Barrera’s preliminary hearing testimony at trial under the unavailability exception.
- Barrera’s absence at trial raised confrontation-clause concerns because defense had not cross-examined him at trial.
- A second shooting involving Roldan and Ayala occurred December 17, 2006, with Garcia surviving and identifying Roldan as someone in or near the car.
- Detective McLeod testified as a gang expert about the car, participants, and the gang context; the defense challenged the relevance and potential prejudice.
- The court later stayed gang enhancements on certain counts and awarded one additional day of presentence custody credit; the convictions related to Barrera’s shooting were reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Barrera’s testimony | Roldan argues Barrera’s testimony was improperly admitted due to lack of unavailability. | People contend Barrera was unavailable and the former testimony rule applies. | Counts involving Barrera reversed; unavailability not sufficiently shown. |
| Due diligence to secure Barrera's attendance | Roldan contends the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence, including not seeking material witness detention or videotaping. | People claim good faith and diligence; attempted to locate and keep Barrera, but deportation intervened. | Prosecution failed to prove due diligence; Barrera counts reversed. |
| Admission of Detective McLeod’s testimony | Roldan argues McLeod’s testimony about the car and arrestees invited improper speculation and prejudice. | People contend testimony was within proper scope and not unduly prejudicial. | No reversible error; testimony did not compel reversal. |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument | Roldan claims vouching occurred when the prosecutor relied on Garcia’s statement to bolster guilt. | Ayala's counsel objected but did not specify grounds; the court correctly framed the argument in context. | No prosecutorial misconduct; vouching issue waived or not improper under the circumstances. |
| Sentencing corrections | Roldan argues for proper presentence custody credit and proper reflection of stay on gang enhancements. | People acknowledge the adjustments should be made per the sentencing decision. | Judgment amended to add one day of presentence credit and to stay gang enhancements; otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Herrera, 49 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2010) (framework for former testimony and unavailability)
- Sandoval, 87 Cal.App.4th 1425 (Cal. App. 2001) (prosecution duty to preserve witness; treaty considerations)
- Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1968) (good faith efforts to obtain attendance despite lack of court power)
- People v. Louis, 42 Cal.3d 969 (Cal. 1986) (due diligence and material witness detention considerations)
- People v. Hovey, 44 Cal.3d 543 (Cal. 1988) (limits of detention and due diligence in witness availability)
- People v. Jacinto, 49 Cal.4th 263 (Cal. 2010) (federal immigration considerations and state procedures)
- People v. Mejia, 57 Cal.App.3d 574 (Cal. App. 1976) (notice to defense and due process considerations)
- People v. Ware, 78 Cal.App.3d 822 (Cal. App. 1978) (videotaping or live testimony as a alternative to in-court appearance)
- U.S. v. Tirado-Tirado, 563 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2009) (reasonable pursuit to preserve witness attendance when deportation is possible)
- People v. Herrera, 49 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2010) (see above (duplicate entry to maintain citation consistency))