P. v. Crawford

Filed 4/28/06 P. v. Crawford CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert R. Fitzgerald, Judge. Reversed.

Terrence Verson Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Crawford.

A.M. Weisman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Guzman.

Janyce Keiko Imata Blair, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Lerma.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Pamela A. Ratner Sobeck and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In a joint trial, a jury convicted Barry Crawford, Eriberto Guzman, and Juan Lerma of first degree murder and street terrorism. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 189; 186.22, subd. (a).) The jury also found the defendants committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and found true various firearm enhancements. Defendants contend admission of Lerma's and Crawford's statements to police implicating all three together as shooting coparticipants constituted Aranda/Bruton error violating their Sixth Amendment confrontation right. (People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 (Aranda); Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 (Bruton).) We agree. The statements, when viewed in conjunction with other evidence, unavoidably and powerfully inculpated each codefendant, but none could cross-examine Lerma or Crawford because both invoked their Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Admission of the statements thus violated each defendant's right of confrontation. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we therefore must reverse. Because the issues may not arise on any retrial or, if they do, the context may be materially different, we do not reach defendants' claims of evidentiary error, instructional error, or prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, we deny Guzman's request for judicial notice as moot.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2001, Edgar Rivera was killed by shots fired from a white truck passing by his father's house at the intersection of Standard Avenue and Camille Street in Santa Ana. Rivera had been standing in the front yard of the house with Cesar Mendoza. Two bullets struck Rivera, one in his left arm and one in his left side, and he bled to death almost immediately. Mendoza ducked, escaped harm, and left the scene.

Mendoza had arrived earlier in the day with Jorge Sanchez. Mendoza and Sanchez visited with Rivera and his brother, Juan Rivera, Jr., in the front yard. Mendoza soon departed to visit a nearby acquaintance. Meanwhile, Robin Whitten, a next-door neighbor, approached the Rivera brothers and Sanchez, and began a conversation with Sanchez. Whitten became distracted because a man he later identified as Guzman walked up and began arguing with the Rivera brothers.

According to Whitten, Guzman asked the Rivera brothers whether they had â€