People v. Diaz
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 431, 60 Cal. 4th 1176, 345 P.3d 62 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a cautionary instruction regarding a defendant's out-of-court oral statements is applicable in a prosecution for making criminal threats, a trial court no longer has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction; the defense must request it.
Facts:
- Dora Diaz and Eduardo Morales had recently ended a relationship.
- In the early morning of September 5, 2009, Diaz and two other women went to Morales's apartment, broke a window, and lured him outside.
- The three women dragged Morales into the driveway by his hair and began to hit and kick him.
- Diaz then whistled and snapped her fingers, summoning three men who joined the assault; one of the men proceeded to stab Morales.
- While Morales was wounded on the ground, Diaz lifted his shirt, laughed at his wounds, and told him “that if [he] did not die this time, that [he] surely would the next time and that she was going to finish off [his] whole family.”
- Diaz also threatened Morales's mother, Marta Rosales, stating she “would kill every member of [Marta’s] family one by one.”
- Diaz threatened Morales's sister-in-law, Indira Pineda, saying “You’re going to pay for this . . . I’m going to kill you.”
Procedural Posture:
- Dora Diaz was charged in California superior court (trial court) with one count of attempted murder and three counts of making criminal threats.
- The trial court did not provide, on its own motion, the cautionary jury instruction regarding a defendant's out-of-court statements (CALCRIM No. 358), and defense counsel did not request it.
- A jury convicted Diaz on all counts.
- Diaz (appellant) appealed her conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court committed reversible error by failing to give the cautionary instruction sua sponte.
- The Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction, finding any error harmless and creating a conflict with another appellate decision, People v. Zichko.
- The Supreme Court of California (highest court) granted review to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury to view with caution a defendant's out-of-court statements when those statements themselves form the basis of the crime of making criminal threats?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.
No. A trial court is no longer required to give the cautionary instruction sua sponte. The court first held that the cautionary instruction (CALCRIM No. 358) is applicable to criminal threats cases, disapproving of the contrary holding in People v. Zichko. The rationale for the instruction—to guard against the dangers of inaccurate or fabricated testimony about a defendant's statements—applies equally whether the statement is evidence of a crime or constitutes the crime itself. However, the court eliminated the long-standing sua sponte duty to give this instruction. The court reasoned that general instructions on witness credibility (e.g., CALCRIM No. 226), which courts are now required to give in every criminal case, sufficiently alert the jury to the need to carefully evaluate testimony. Therefore, the specific cautionary instruction is no longer one of the 'general principles of law necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case' that mandates sua sponte delivery. Its use is now a strategic decision for defense counsel to request.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in California criminal procedure by eliminating the trial court's automatic duty to give the cautionary instruction for a defendant's out-of-court statements. The ruling places the onus on defense counsel to request the instruction, transforming it from a mandatory safeguard into a tactical choice. While clarifying that the instruction is available in criminal threats cases and resolving a conflict in the appellate courts, the primary impact is the potential for inconsistent application if counsel fails to request it. This change relies on the sufficiency of general credibility instructions to protect defendants from unreliable testimony about their alleged statements.
