Fear Not Law Articles: PEOPLE v. PEDROZA

PEOPLE v. PEDROZA

Filed 2/13/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

STEVE CHRISTOPHER PEDROZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

B189682

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. VA083497)

In re

STEVE CHRISTOPHER PEDROZA,

on Habeas Corpus.

B194249

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dewey L. Falcone, Judge. Affirmed.

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petition dismissed.

Lynda A. Romero, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Steve Christopher Pedroza appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree murder and arson of an inhabited structure. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 451, subd. (b).)[1] He contends the trial court erred when it admitted the victim's out-of-court statements and a videotape of a demonstration performed by a prosecution expert. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

Defendant also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an appropriate objection to the admission of the victim's statements. As we address the principal issue in the appeal, the petition is moot and is therefore dismissed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Prosecution Case

Defendant lived in a home in Whittier with his wife, Teresa Rodriguez, and their 16-year-old son Steve Pedroza.[2] On June 20, 2004, at around midnight, Steve was home with his mother. At about 1:00 or 2:00 a.m., Steve heard defendant return to the house. As Steve watched television in his bedroom, he heard his parents arguing. He could not understand what they were saying, but both were yelling. The argument appeared to begin in the living room. After a few minutes, his parents moved to the kitchen and then into the backyard. They were still arguing.

At one point, Steve heard defendant say, â€

Description	Victim's comments to officers accusing her husband of having thrown gas on her and ignited it, given within minutes of incident, were admissible under spontaneous statements exception to hearsay rule. Admission of victim's spontaneous statements did not violate Confrontation Clause since such statements were not testimonial in nature and were not the products of formal interrogation. Videotaped demonstration of arson investigator lighting a paper towel and throwing it to the ground was properly admitted to rebut defense expert's claim that paper does not continue to burn when tossed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.