12 Cal. App. 5th 766
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Victim Josephine Kelley (90) was found bound and smothered in September 2005; burglary and pawned stolen property tied to Kiesha Smith and Michael Mitchell.
- Initial investigation focused on grandson Derrick Hassett; Smith and Mitchell later linked by recovered stolen items at Mitchell's mother's home; Beck pleaded guilty and testified against defendants.
- Smith allegedly made out‑of‑court statements to acquaintances confessing presence and describing Mitchell as more violent; those statements were reported by Johns and Lott at trial.
- Defendants were tried jointly but before separate juries in 2014; both convicted of first‑degree murder with special circumstances and sentenced to life without parole.
- Appellate history: prior reversal of both convictions for prejudicial error in joint trial; Supreme Court granted review and transferred for reconsideration in light of People v. Grimes; this opinion reaffirms reversal as to Smith (instructional error) and affirms Mitchell's conviction (admission of Smith's statements upheld).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Smith's out‑of‑court statements against Mitchell — Confrontation Clause | Statements were non‑testimonial so no Crawford violation; admissible if against declarant's penal interest | Mitchell: Statements were testimonial or, if not, inadmissible under Evid. Code §1230 because they mainly shift blame to him and are unreliable | Statements were non‑testimonial (primary‑purpose test) and properly admitted under §1230 as against Smith's penal interest; admission not prejudicial to Mitchell |
| Application of Evidence Code §1230 to portions that shift blame | Prosecution: Context matters (Grimes); portions that place Mitchell as more culpable may still be admissible if inextricably tied to declarant's self‑inculpatory remarks | Mitchell: Portions shifting majority blame to him are self‑exculpatory for Smith and inadmissible per Leach/Duarte/Williamson | Court follows Grimes contextual approach, finds Smith's statements sufficiently disserving and trustworthy (as to Johns and Lott) and admissible; alternative reliability objections rejected |
| Jury instruction on accomplice testimony given to Smith's jury (CALCRIM 301/334 conflict) | People: Instructions were adequate; no reversible error | Smith: Trial court misinstructed jury by requiring corroboration for all accomplice testimony including exculpatory testimony; prejudicial and caused dismissal of holdout juror | Error: Instruction stating all accomplice testimony "requires" corroboration was incorrect and prejudicial to Smith; Smith's conviction reversed and remanded for retrial |
| Discharge of Juror No. 8 and related trial conduct | People: Dismissal was proper for non‑deliberation/other stated reasons | Smith: Dismissal violated right to impartial jury and unanimity; juror was sole holdout | Court does not reach merits of juror dismissal issue because reversal rests on instructional error; notes juror removal was entwined with misapplied instruction |
| Misc. Mitchell claims (adoptive admission instruction, Beck plea terms, Lott impeachment, cumulative error) | People: No instructional duty sua sponte; plea terms and impeachment handling proper; no cumulative error | Mitchell: Court should have instructed on adoptive admission; plea agreement bolstering witness improper; counsel ineffective on impeachment | Court rejects Mitchell's claims: no sua sponte duty for adoptive‑admission instruction; plea agreement and impeachment handling permissible; tactical choices by counsel not ineffective; no cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Grimes, 1 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2016) (contextual test for admitting portions of third‑party statements under declarations‑against‑interest)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation right principles)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (primary‑purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (consider all circumstances in primary‑purpose/testimonial inquiry)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (portions of statements that shift blame may be inadmissible under the federal counterpart to §1230)
- People v. Duarte, 24 Cal.4th 603 (2000) (statements that are partly self‑exculpatory and shift blame may lack trustworthiness under §1230)
- People v. Samuels, 36 Cal.4th 96 (2005) (context may render references to others in an admission inextricably tied to declarant's penal interest)
- People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 (1975) (portion of confession not specifically disserving to declarant is generally inadmissible)
- People v. Gordon, 50 Cal.3d 1223 (1990) (statements minimizing declarant's role but implicating others can be admissible if sufficiently disserving)
- People v. Greenberger, 58 Cal.App.4th 298 (1997) (informal circumstances can supply trustworthiness for admissions against interest)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (standard for assessing prejudicial error on appeal)