P. v. Soria
Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of lewd conduct with a child under 14 years of age. Appellant argues that the judgment must be reversed because: (1) the trial court improperly excluded three Spanish-speaking prospective jurors for cause; (2) the court admitted evidence of a statement made by appellant to police that was not preceded by a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights under Miranda v. Arizona; (3) evidence of the victim's description of the offense to his mother under the fresh complaint doctrine violated the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington (2004); (4) the court improperly restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of a witness who had transcribed and translated appellant's statement to police from Spanish to English; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Appellant alternatively argues that the court abused its discretion when it imposed the upper term on the lewd conduct count and improperly relied on aggravating factors that were neither admitted by him nor found true by the jury. Finally, appellant notes that the abstract of judgment should be modified to reflect that conduct credits were awarded under section 2933.1, rather than section 4019. Court agreed with the final contention, but otherwise affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Soria