P. v. Duran
In this carjacking case, defendant took a car from a car salesman during the course of a test drive. On the day following the carjacking, Defendant was stopped by law enforcement officers while driving the stolen car and arrested. The salesman, who had spent a few minutes in the car in fairly close proximity to Defendant before the carjacking took place, was able to positively identify him and testify against him at trial. During the course of trial, at which Defendant acted in propria persona, the prosecution provided him with a police report which stated that two other employees of the car dealership were unable to identify him as the carjacker. The prosecution did not call the other two employees as witnesses and Defendant did not ask for a continuance to further investigate the information in the police report.
Following entry of a guilty verdict, Defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that his defense was unfairly prejudiced by the failure of the prosecution to produce the police report in a more timely fashion. On this record the trial court did not err in denying his motion for new trial. Given the car salesman's positive identification and the circumstances which made that identification credible, testimony about the inability of the other employees to identify Duran would not have materially improved his case. Because, unlike the car salesman, the other employees had not been in close proximity to Duran, a reasonable jury would not have found any inconsistency between their statements and the salesman's positive identification.
Comments on P. v. Duran