Opinion
F068099
03-29-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRIS LAVALE WASHINGTON, Defendant and Appellant.
Michael Satris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Michael Dolida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. F11903068)
OPINION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. Michael Satris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Michael Dolida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Chris Lavale Washington was convicted by jury of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)), a lesser included offense of the charged offense of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true a special allegation that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 21 years in prison.
All further undefined citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by permitting the jury to hear and read 13 portions of a redacted police interview with a witness to the crime. Defendant claims the statements admitted were neither consistent nor inconsistent with the witness's statements at trial, detectives asked the witness leading questions and vouched for his credibility, the statements likely confused the jury, entailed an undue consumption of time, and were more prejudicial than probative. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 24, 2011, various friends were hanging out at the apartment of Damien Pierson (also known as DP) throughout the day. The crowd included Antonine Caradine, his brother Joe Caradine, Kay Homer Daniels (also known as Cash or Kash), and Robert Pickett. Pierson lived at an apartment complex in Clovis on the corner of West Ashlan Avenue and Helm Street.
In the morning, the group discussed a fight occurring a few days earlier between defendant and Ed Lover. Defendant was friends with Pickett, and Pickett had brought defendant to Pierson's apartment on previous occasions to hang out. Caradine started boasting about how his friend, Ed Lover, had beat up defendant. Pickett called defendant to tell him what Caradine was saying and to get his version of the events.
A few hours later, defendant asked Pickett to come over to his house and pick him up. Pickett borrowed a car belonging to his girlfriend, LaMischa Spaulding, and went to get defendant. After stopping for something to eat, Pickett and defendant drove to Ed Lover's house, but Lover was not home so they left.
Pickett and defendant picked up Spaulding, drove back to Ashlan and Helm, and parked in an alley. Defendant and Pickett went into Pierson's apartment where Pierson, the Caradine brothers, and others were. At some point, Pickett, defendant, and the Caradine brothers stepped outside. Everyone was talking about the fight between defendant and Lover. Defendant started "trash talking," stating Lover "ain't got hands like me" and "I'll beat Ed Lover up." However, the conversation was not aggressive or heated.
Daniels, who had been outside on his phone, walked over to the group. He was upset and he told them they needed to go somewhere else because they were being too loud. Daniels walked over to Pickett and "got in his face," asking Pickett why he brought defendant to the apartment and told Pickett he was just "startin[g] trouble." When Pickett asked Daniels why he was upset, Daniels challenged him to a fight. Pickett backed down, but defendant stood up to Daniels and let him know he was willing to fight.
Daniels and defendant argued, until Daniels moved over to the grass and started taking off his sweater. Suddenly, Pickett heard three gunshots and saw Daniels fall to the ground. Pickett did not see a gun, but he saw a muzzle flash.
At the time of the shooting, Robert Hernandez was in his car northbound on Helm waiting to turn westbound. Hernandez heard four "pops" in quick succession from the northeast quadrant of the intersection. He looked in that direction and saw someone in the fenced area of the corner apartment shoot another person. Hernandez saw the shooter, a Black man, holding something, and he saw three muzzle flashes. According to Hernandez, the victim did not have anything in his hands.
Spaulding got out of her car and began "runnin[g] around and screamin[g]." Pickett, who could not believe what had just happened, went into Pierson's apartment with others. Defendant fled.
Before Hernandez turned west onto Ashlan, he saw a Black man run from the area of Pierson's apartment. After turning onto Ashlan, Hernandez made a U-turn and drove by the scene of the shooting. This time, the man who had run across Helm was hiding by the apartments on Ashlan. Hernandez noticed he was wearing a blue shirt. The man was peeking around the corner looking back toward Helm.
Pickett left Pierson's apartment and took Spaulding's car back to her home, parking the vehicle in an alley behind her apartment. Renata Clutter was in the garage area of Spaulding's apartment. She heard two loud noises back-to-back and heard Spaulding say, "'Somebody call the cops.'" Clutter went outside to check on Spaulding. While Clutter stood by the apartment door, a Black man wearing a blue shirt came through the gate and headed toward the door with Pickett. The man appeared aggravated, and asked Clutter, "'Why you following me?'" when she tried to see where they were going.
Clutter noticed the man was holding something under his blue shirt, which appeared to be a gun. Pickett and defendant, the man in the blue shirt, got into Spaulding's car and sped off. They drove around the corner and parked by a nearby liquor store. Pickett left the car there and walked back to his apartment. He did not know where defendant went after that.
Daniels suffered several gunshot wounds. He died as a result of his injuries.
On January 13, 2012, defendant's jury trial commenced. He was convicted of second degree murder. In addition, the jury also found true a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
On April 20, 2012, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
On May 9, 2013, following a retrial, defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. In addition, the jury found true the section 12022.5, subdivision (a), firearm enhancement allegation.
Recorded Jail Phone Calls
Defendant placed several phone calls to various individuals while in jail. Recordings of these phone calls were played for the jury at trial.
In one call, defendant stated it did not appear anyone was making efforts to ensure "nobody ... come[s] to court." Based on two of the phone calls, it appeared Johnathan Hardeman and another unknown individual were keeping tabs on Pickett. During another call, an unknown individual created rap lyrics threatening Pickett should he testify: "Go to court to testify and take the stand Robert Pickett you know you in trouble man." In a conversation between Hardeman and defendant, Hardeman told defendant someone had hit Pickett with a bottle the previous night.
ANALYSIS
Defendant contends 13 portions of Pickett's interview with Clovis police detectives should have been redacted because the statements in the challenged portions were neither consistent nor inconsistent with Pickett's statements at trial, they were irrelevant and prejudicial toward defendant's defense, some of the information likely confused the jury, the statements resulted in an undue consumption of time, and the detectives asked the witness leading questions and attempted to vouch for the witness's credibility in the statements. We are not persuaded admission of any of the challenged statements, considered either separately or in the aggregate, was an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Procedural History
The prosecutor filed a pretrial motion seeking to admit into evidence a videotape of Pickett's interview with Clovis police detectives. The prosecutor argued Pickett's statements were admissible to show he had made prior consistent and inconsistent statements. Defendant objected, arguing the videotape would constitute an undue consumption of time. The trial court reserved its ruling on this issue until after Pickett's testimony, explaining it simply would not know whether consistent or inconsistent statements existed until after hearing from the witness.
Pickett's Testimony at Trial
During trial, Pickett repeatedly responded to questions by indicating he could not remember or he could not recall. For instance, Pickett could not recall whether he gave defendant a ride to Pierson's apartment on the day of the shooting. He also testified he did not know for sure who had been in a fight with Ed Lover, and he did not remember anybody talking about a fight between defendant and Ed Lover. Pickett could not remember if defendant was even at Pierson's apartment the day of the shooting. For the most part, Pickett could not recall any of the statements he made to the detectives during his interview, and he denied telling police defendant had shot Daniels.
Pickett claimed he was doing a lot of drugs around the time of the shooting. On the night he was questioned by police, Pickett claimed he was drinking Remy Martin cognac, smoking marijuana, and using promethazine and codeine. He claimed he was intoxicated and not able to think clearly during the interview.
Pickett also testified about threats he received because of his prior testimony in this case. He described an incident in December 2011 where Antonine Caradine hit him over the head with a Remy Martin bottle. In January 2012, Hardeman, an associate of defendant's, called Pickett a snitch and sucker-punched him in the jaw. Pickett had to have a plate put in his jaw, and it affected his ability to speak. Pickett admitted the Hardeman assault was still on his mind and caused him concern about his safety.
The Trial Court's Ruling
Following Pickett's testimony, the trial court held evidence of Pickett's interview with Clovis police detectives was admissible. The portions of the interview held admissible amounted to 83-pages of a 110-page transcript.
The court noted the length and breadth of the admissible statements were affected, in part, by the court's desire to "include statements from Mr. Pickett where he made denials ...." For example, the court discussed the fact Pickett was "adamant that he never saw [defendant] holding a gun. As a matter of fact, he said he never saw a gun that day." "[Pickett] does say he was around the corner, and he did not see the shooting." The court explained, "I am allowing in [these statements] essentially from a perspective of completeness, I want to make sure Mr. Pickett's statements that are exculpatory to [defendant] are included, and I have done my best to include that."
The trial court's decision was also based on the fact Pickett had been intimidated prior to trial. The court explained, "[Pickett] was beat up within days of his prior testimony to the extent that his jaw was broken, and he was called a snitch by none other than Mr. Hardaman [sic]." The court made clear it was neither finding nor implying defendant was a party to the intimidation, but "it cannot be ignored that Mr. Pickett—his testimony at the last trial was markedly different than this testimony."
The court concluded there was no confrontation clause issue implicated by admitting the interview because Pickett was available to be cross-examined about any statements he made. It explained Pickett's statements were admissible because there was a reasonable basis in the record to conclude Pickett's "I don't know" statements were deliberately evasive and untruthful. During his testimony, Pickett was adamant he did not remember anything. However, during his police interview, he was able to draw a map of particular areas of the apartment complex for the detectives. The court concluded this demonstrated, "[Pickett's] memory is precise."
Finally, the court noted statements from the interview appeared to show Pickett opening up to the detectives based on his own statements: "'I'm going to say something, you know, cause the way you came at me pretty, you know, like you kept it cool, you know. Even though I'm not saying that—you—but, you know.'" This statement demonstrated a sharp contrast between Pickett's testimony at trial and, according to the court, it "[was] significant for the jury to consider [Pickett's] different take on the interview here versus the interview there."
The court concluded the redacted version of the interview sufficiently addressed any concerns about the admissibility of the interview under Evidence Code section 352 and the rules of evidence pursuant to prior inconsistent and prior consistent statements.
Defendant objected to the admission of the redacted interview, asserting the detectives were feeding Pickett information during the interview. He further asserted some of the statements Pickett made during the interview were not consistent or inconsistent with his testimony at trial, such as the detectives' statements about "how great of a guy Kash was, and how ... Kash's mom is a church-going lady." According to defendant, those statements would also constitute vouching for the character of the victim. Rather than permitting a majority of Pickett's statements to come into evidence, defendant asserted the trial court should allow Pickett's statements to come in line-by-line to give Pickett an opportunity to refresh his recollection. The trial court reaffirmed its original ruling, holding the interview was admissible.
Challenged Portions of the Interview
Defendant challenges on various grounds the admission of 13 portions of Pickett's interview with police. Because defendant failed to quote all of the statements he challenges, we quote both his argument and those portions of the transcript we believe he is referring to:
"1. [Clerk's Transcript pages] 1027-29, including the question 'when you and [defendant] showed up, did you know that [defendant] was gonna shoot Cash?' [citation]; the remainder of that page and the next one through [Clerk's Transcript page] 1029 up to 'Well first, ..., let's cross that bridge first'; and then the statement, 'if you didn't know he was gonna shoot.' Those pages otherwise should have been excluded because they consisted mostly of the detectives and Pickett talking about what a good guy Daniels was, how his mother was a lovely woman, various other aspects of Daniels's life, and what Daniels liked to do for hobbies."
"[DETECTIVE #1]: [W]hen you and [defendant] showed up, did you know that [defendant] was gonna shoot Cash? Did you know?
"[PICKETT]: No. [¶] ...[¶]
"[DETECTIVE #2]: So was [defendant] goin' over there to shoot Cash or somebody else?
"[DETECTIVE #1]: Well first, well let's, let's cross this bridge first. Why did, why did you even take him over there? If you didn't know he was gonna shoot? Why did you ever take him over there?
"[PICKETT]: That's a good question."
Although we have reviewed the transcript, we have omitted quoting the entire two pages of the record defendant challenges.
"2. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1030, where the detectives tell Pickett that [defendant] killed one of his friends and how 'fucked up' that is while Pickett agrees how it is 'fucked up.'"
"[DETECTIVE #1]: Okay? And I know, you know I know you're not arg, arguin' that with me, but that's what I'm sayin' is that... Why? Why did you take [defendant] over there?
"[PICKETT]: Also, [defendant] is my friend too.
"[DETECTIVE #1]: Oh, I know that. Yea. Obviously. That's why you're in Bakersfield visitin' him.
"[PICKETT]: Yea. That's my friend. That's my friend too, like...
"[DETECTIVE #1]: But, but, I know he's your friend. But he also killed one of your friends. He killed one of your friends. And that's a hard thing to swallow, I know. And I can tell from the night that we first talked that that was botherin' the shit outta you.
"[DETECTIVE #2]: Do you see how fucked up that is?
"[DETECTIVE #1]: That is fucked up.
"[PICKETT]: Yea, I know, I know, dude. You're tellin' me somethin' I already fuckin' know."
"3. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1034, where the detectives are essentially telling Pickett that it is [defendant] who put Pickett in this mess, telling Pickett 'Somethin' happened between [Daniels] and [defendant],' and generally feeding Pickett information or leading him rather than allowing Pickett to describe what happened at DP's."
"[DETECTIVE #1]: [Defendant] put you in this situation. That's why (giggles) you're here right now, in Bakersfield, California, at the Bakersfield Police Department. Not because, quite honestly what you did, it's what, what he did. You found yourself in the middle of it and that's what we're tryin' to understand is why. [¶] ...[¶]
"[DETECTIVE #1]: Yea. That's the least of our concerns. I just need to know the dynamics of what happened over there and why Cash is layin' dead. Shit went south. Shit went south. Somethin' happened between him and Chris. Next thing I know, Cash has got one shot in his, uh, leg and two shots in his back."
"4. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1035, including the lines 'just drove him over there' to 'I know where they're at, I'll take you over there'; and the sequence on this page where one of the detectives indicates that Pickett knew [defendant] wanted to shoot someone and Pickett was offering [defendant] a ride to DP's so [defendant] could 'kill ... that son of a bitch [Daniels].'"
"[DETECTIVE #2]: ... just drove him over there... [¶] ... [¶]
"[DETECTIVE #2]: ... let's go kill this son of a bitch... [¶] ... [¶]
"[DETECTIVE #2]: ... let's go kill him. Let's go shoot this guy. Let's go gun him down. You know, I'll...
"[PICKETT]: (Inaudible)...
"[DETECTIVE #2]: ... take you over there.
"[PICKETT]: ... that's (inaudible)."
"5. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1037, where the detectives throughout are telling Pickett that [defendant] shot Daniels rather than having Pickett tell the detectives what happened."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: ... (Inaudible) I under ... I understand. Let me ask... let me ask you a couple of little questions. Okay? (Clears throat). A second ago you said that, that you didn't know that [defendant] was gonna shoot Cash when you took him there. Is that true?
"[PICKETT]: I didn't say (inaudible).
"[DETECTIVE #3]: Did you, did you take [defendant] there to sh. have him shoot Cash?
"[PICKETT]: No."
"6. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1039, where detectives again are feeding Pickett information."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: Okay. And was he upset? Okay. Good. He was upset. Then you left, a couple hours later, and you hooked up with him. You hooked up with him for what reason? You had no idea the shooting was gonna happen? Okay. So you hooked up with him, why? Why did you go hook up with [defendant]?
"[PICKETT]: Just because. I called him and he told me to come pick him up."
"7. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1042, where the detectives are telling Pickett what happened rather than having him tell them what happened."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: I want to know what you were thinking. What you knew he was gonna do or didn't know. See what I'm sayin'? The D.A. has to decide whether you took him there to shoot him or whether you didn't know what was goin' on. You see what I'm sayin'?
"[PICKETT]: You just (inaudible) the little information I told you right now shows that I didn't, I didn't know."
"8. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1043, where the detective vouched for Pickett's credibility by suggesting that he is being truthful with him and again implying that [defendant] went to DP's to shoot Daniels."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: Did, that, that's, that's why I said this conversation was gonna be good for you. If you were truthful and so far you're bein' truthful with me. See, if you, if you tell me the truth as we go along on, on things, then when we, then we start to see, hey, he's bein' truthful about what he knew or didn't know, 'cause member, like I said, I know where you went just in all the phone calls you made, the whole thing.
"[DETECTIVE #1]: And everything your saying is matching. [¶] ...[¶]
"[DETECTIVE #3]: But I didn't know what you knew, in your heart, that he was gonna do. You see what I'm sayin'?
"[PICKETT]: Yea.
"[DETECTIVE #3]: I didn't know whether.... I didn't know whether you went to get him to come shoot them...
"[PICKETT]: Yea.
"[DETECTIVE #3]: ... or whether you went to get him to come over there and argue with 'em. I mean we've ... all been in arguments. Right?
"[PICKETT]: I know ...."
"9. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1044, where the detective is again telling Pickett that [defendant] shot Daniels."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: That didn't turn into shootings. Right?
"[PICKETT]: ... No, yea, it wasn't (inaudible) he was gonna go over there to, tah, shoot nobody, 'cause the target, I guess, wasn't, wasn't anyone over there."
"10. [Clerk's Transcript pages] 1045-1046, where the detective tells Pickett that [defendant] was armed that day."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: [Defendant] [¶] ... [¶] ... was packin' a gun.
"[PICKETT]: Yea, but..."
"11. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1054, where the detective is again telling Pickett that [defendant] had a gun."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: Well, he ... had a gun."
"12. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1058, where the detective is again asking questions with the assumption that [defendant] had a gun."
"[DETECTIVE #3]: Where, where did he have the gun?
"[PICKETT]: (Inaudible).
"[DETECTIVE #3]: When he pulled it out?
"[PICKETT]: I don't know. I didn't see."
"13. [Clerk's Transcript page] 1060, where Pickett is talking in general about friends hanging out, including Daniels; their various cars; and how their group had socialized in the past before their good times in essence were ended by the shooting of Daniels."
"[PICKETT]: Whatever. We go out, kick it, whatever ....
"[DETECTIVE #1]: K.
"[PICKETT]: Race cars, fix up cars and all that stuff. You know? 'Cause that's what we like to do. You know? Raji had a nice Lexus or a alright Lexus on him.
"[DETECTIVE #1]: Yea, it's just alright. [¶] ...[¶]
"[PICKETT]: ... everything. You know? Uhm, you know, and everyone around, you know, Cash, had a couple uh good cars. You know? You know? It was just like this box Caprice, it was white and burgundy or pinkish, champagne color. Had a Lexus, pretty, you know, painted and everything. You know? And also I got a Cutlass, pretty cherry. You know? Uhm, restored, you know, not probly [sic] how it, how I want it, but it's, it's cool. You know? [¶] ...[¶]
"[DETECTIVE #3]: You're gonna give this straight up. Bam..."
I. The 13 Challenged Portions of Pickett's Interview Were Properly Admitted
We initially observe defendant does not challenge the admission of the majority of the interview itself. In any event, we are satisfied the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to introduce a redacted version of Pickett's police interview.
"'"A statement by a witness that is inconsistent with his or her trial testimony is admissible to establish the truth of the matter asserted in the statement under the conditions set forth in Evidence Code sections 1235 and 770."'" (People v. Homick (2012) 55 Cal.4th 816, 859, citing People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 462.) "Similarly, ... a witness's refusal to answer may be materially inconsistent with prior statements, exposing the witness to impeachment under Evidence Code section 1235." (People v. Homick, supra, at p. 859.)
Here, the evidence tended to show Pickett's inability at trial to recall details about the shooting was attributed to the fact he had been intimidated as a result of being assaulted on two prior occasions. Although Pickett claimed he could not remember basic details about the day of the shooting and stated he could not think clearly during police questioning, the record refutes these claims. Pickett previously made detailed statements to police about the shooting and, as a result, there was a reasonable basis in the record to conclude his "I don't know" statements were deliberately evasive and untruthful. Because we conclude evidence of the interview was properly admitted, we now turn to the 13 portions of the interview defendant specifically challenges.
Defendant initially contends the challenged statements were prejudicial because they were the product of leading questions by the detectives. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 764, "A 'leading question' is a question that suggests to the witness the answer that the examining party desires." (Evid. Code, § 764.) Evidence Code section 767, subdivision (a) provides leading questions "may not be asked of a witness on direct or redirect examination" or "on cross-examination or recross-examination" except in "special circumstances where the interests of justice otherwise require."
Defendant's argument relies on the assumption that Pickett's interview with the detectives is akin to a witness testifying at trial. However, assuming the detectives asked Pickett leading questions during police questioning, this does not implicate Evidence Code section 764. Evidence Code section 767 prohibits the use of leading questions on "direct or redirect examination," or "cross-examination or recross-examination," but not by police detectives questioning a witness.
Defendant directs us to People v. Evans (1952) 39 Cal.2d 242, 247-249 (Evans), and People v. Shipe (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 343, 349-350 (Shipe). However, his reliance on Evans and Shipe is unavailing. In Evans, the prosecutor asked leading questions for purposes of getting uncorroborated testimony before the jury. (Evans, supra, at pp. 247-248.) The prosecutor made no attempt to prove the truth of the matter asserted in those questions, and the only apparent purpose for the prosecutor's questions were to get harmful statements before the jury. (Id. at p. 248.)
In Shipe, two witnesses, accessories to a murder, refused to testify at the defendant's trial for the murder. (Shipe, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at pp. 345-346.) Prosecutors nonetheless questioned the witnesses with leading questions, implicating the defendant in the murder. The prosecutor asked specific questions detailing facts about the crime, prefaced by, "'Is it not true that ....'" (Id. at pp. 346-349). The questioning was held to violate the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights because a prosecutor "may not, under the guise of cross-examination, get before the jury what is tantamount to devastating direct testimony" that is not subject to cross-examination. (Shipe, at p. 349.)
Neither of these cases involve circumstances similar to the instant case. Pickett was not on direct or cross-examination when he was questioned by Clovis police detectives. (Evid. Code, § 767.) Further, the trial court instructed the jury the detectives' statements and questions were not evidence:
"I remind you, once again, in listening to this evidence, one, the transcript you have before you is just a guide; two, the questions asked and the statements made by the detectives are not evidence. They should not be considered for their truth for any purpose. They should only be considered as they give context to Mr. Pickett's answers. You will receive instructions at a later time concerning the evidentiary use of Mr. Pickett's statements. But, again, what the detectives say, the words they use, the facts they state, are not evidence and should not be considered for their truth in any way."
There is no evidence in the record to support defendant's assertion the jury was confused by or otherwise unable to follow the trial court's instruction. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we presume jurors understood and followed the trial court's instructions. (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 746.) To the extent defendant asserts the detectives' questions gave context to Pickett's statements, we fail to see how that compels the conclusion their questions were leading questions within the meaning of Evidence Code section 764, or how that could have resulted in prejudice to defendant.
Defendant further contends some portions of the interview should have been redacted because they contained "irrelevant and prejudicial" statements. He specifically asserts the detectives' statements about what a good guy Daniels was and the fact that Daniels was a teddy bear and that his mother was a lovely woman "painted a sympathetic picture of Daniels," they were not inconsistent statements, and "lent itself to an emotional response by the jury out of sympathy for Daniels." Further, according to defendant, the detectives' statements to Pickett that they believed he was being truthful "improperly bolstered Pickett's credibility" and amounted to witness vouching.
First, we reject defendant's assertion the prosecutor improperly vouched for Pickett by introducing the detectives' statements in the interview. "'[A] prosecutor is prohibited from vouching for the credibility of witnesses or otherwise bolstering the veracity of their testimony by referring to evidence outside the record.'" (People v. Caldwell (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1269.) Defendant does not direct us to any legal authority to support the conclusion the prosecutor vouched for Pickett's credibility by the trial court's admission of the detectives' statements.
Second, to the extent defendant challenges the detectives' statements about Daniels's mother as irrelevant or prejudicial, we are satisfied the challenged statements were properly admitted and did not prejudice defendant. Contrary to Pickett's testimony at trial, these statements support the conclusion Pickett did in fact remember details about the shooting, including the identity of the shooter:
"[PICKETT]: I have no enemies.
"[DETECTIVE #1]: I know and that's what I'm sayin'. Cash was not the target here. Cash should not be dead right now. Okay? You know that and I know that. I've talked to a lot of people. Cash was the wrong guy. Cash was a big teddy bear. K? But because he stepped up at the wrong time and [defendant] did what he did, Cash is dead. K? [¶] ...[¶] ... He was not a bad guy. In fact, I've had the opportunity to speak with Cash's mother, several times. Nicest lady in the world. And all she wants is just a reason. And if I can give her that reason, and if you can confirm with me that it was not supposed to happen that way, I think that would be some closure for her. You see what I'm sayin'?
"[PICKETT]: I understand, I understand.
"[DETECTIVE #1]: She, she is the nicest church goin' lady you've ever...
"[PICKETT]: Yea, I understand, but what about the closure for me. [¶] ...[¶] ... This is my life we're talkin' about."
Notably, Pickett did not claim he could not recall who shot Daniels or why Daniels was shot. To the extent defendant contends these statements were prejudicial, we are not persuaded these statements created a substantial danger of inflaming the jury's passions by engendering feelings of sympathy for the victim or his mother. Nor are we persuaded the admission of the 13 challenged portions of the interview necessitated an undue consumption of time.
We conclude defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing the trial court erred in declining to redact any of the 13 challenged portions of Pickett's interview with the detectives.
II. Defendant Was Not Prejudiced
Although we conclude the trial court did not err in admitting any of the 13 portions of Pickett's interview with police detectives, even if we were to conclude otherwise, we are not persuaded defendant was prejudiced as a result.
Defendant contends "[t]here was ample evidence ... Daniels fired a gun at [defendant] a moment before [defendant] fired the three shots at Daniels that killed him." We disagree.
Defendant points to the fact gunshot residue was found on Daniels's right hand. However, the presence of gunshot residue on Daniels's hand does not necessarily mean he fired a gun at defendant. A witness at trial testified gunshot residue can get on an individual if they are anywhere near a firearm when it is discharged. Further, as defendant himself concedes, no gun was found on or around Daniels, and none of the witnesses to the shooting indicated they saw Daniels with a gun. This evidence supports the conclusion Daniels did not have a gun when defendant shot him.
Although testing of Daniels's right hand came back presumptively positive for gunshot residue, the record indicates there was no analysis of gunshot residue performed by the Department of Justice in this case.
While defendant made exculpatory statements to Hardeman in a recorded jail phone conversation claiming Daniels had a gun, the jury was entitled to reject defendant's self-serving statements. While in jail, defendant told Hardeman he was going to tell police what happened: "[Daniels] shot at me first, I shot back." According to defendant, the police knew Daniels shot a gun because he had "gun powder all over his hands ...." Defendant further claimed, "I had to defend myself. [¶] ... [¶] ... [I would have] been a dummy to let somebody kill me." In finding defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the jury apparently found defendant's statements were not credible.
By asking this court to reverse his conviction, defendant essentially asks this court to make alternative inferences from the evidence adduced at trial and to find this was a "close case." Not only are we are bound to resolve all inferences in favor of the judgment (People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848-849), we are not persuaded this was a particularly close case. Pickett's statements to police, defendant's flight after the shooting evincing a consciousness of guilt, his contrived statements to Hardeman in the recorded jail phone calls, and the lack of evidence corroborating his claim of self-defense all support the conclusion the 13 challenged portions of Pickett's police interview did not result in prejudice.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
PEÑA, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
GOMES, Acting P.J. /s/_________
DETJEN, J.