P. v. Lee CA3
After the trial court found a testifying eyewitness to a shooting in contempt of court for refusing to answer the vast majority of the prosecutor’s questions on direct examination, it determined the witness nevertheless had provided “evasive and untruthful” “implied testimony” inconsistent with earlier statements to police. Accordingly, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1235, the trial court permitted the prosecution to play to the jury the witness’s recorded prior inconsistent statement identifying defendant, Armani Sicilian Lee, as the shooter. On appeal, defendant argues (1) under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the contempt order barred the trial court’s later evidentiary ruling; (2) the erroneous evidentiary ruling violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness; and (3) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to strike all of an eyewitness’s testimony.
Comments on P. v. Lee CA3