People v. Freeman
97 Cal. Rptr. 717, 20 Cal. App. 3d 488 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Evidence Code § 1235, a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible not only to impeach their credibility but also as substantive evidence of the truth of the matters asserted, provided the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination regarding the statement.
Facts:
- Around 11:30 a.m., Foster and Ellis committed an armed robbery of a store.
- A witness, Gonzales, saw two men enter the store from a green and white Chevrolet while a third man, the driver, remained in the car.
- Gonzales saw the two men run from the store and get into the car, which then drove away; he noted its description and license number.
- Forty minutes later, police stopped the described car, which was owned and driven by Norman Freeman, with Foster as a passenger.
- Freeman claimed he had spent the prior night at his fiancee's home and was driving to a doctor's appointment when he coincidentally encountered Foster and offered him a ride.
- Freeman also stated he had allowed Ellis to use the car overnight to test drive it.
- A rebuttal witness, Mrs. Duckworth, testified that on the morning of the robbery, she heard her daughter greet a man named Norman at her home, where Foster often stayed.
- In court, Mrs. Duckworth denied telling an investigator, Fred Knipp, that she saw Freeman and Foster leave her daughter's house together that morning.
Procedural Posture:
- The People of California prosecuted Norman Freeman in a state trial court.
- A jury convicted Freeman of first-degree robbery.
- Freeman, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal, with the People as the appellee.
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 California Evidence Code § 1235, which permits the substantive use of a witness's prior inconsistent statements as evidence, violate the hearsay rule or the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when the witness testifies at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, Acting P. J.
No. California Evidence Code § 1235 does not violate the hearsay rule or the Confrontation Clause by allowing a witness's prior inconsistent statement to be used as substantive evidence. The court reasoned that the constitutionality of this rule was affirmed in California v. Green, which held that the primary purpose of the Confrontation Clause—ensuring the defendant's ability to cross-examine witnesses—is satisfied when the declarant testifies at trial. The jury can observe the witness's demeanor as they deny or explain the inconsistency, allowing them to assess the credibility of both the prior statement and the current testimony. The court also held that it is not improper for a party to call a witness they know will recant, as doing so is a legitimate use of § 1235 to introduce the prior statement and allow the jury to determine the truth.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the modern rule under California Evidence Code § 1235, which departs from the common law tradition limiting prior inconsistent statements to impeachment purposes. By allowing such statements as substantive evidence, the ruling provides a crucial tool for litigants, especially prosecutors, to combat the problem of recanting or 'turncoat' witnesses. The analysis, heavily reliant on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in California v. Green, solidifies the principle that the opportunity for in-court cross-examination is the cornerstone of the Confrontation Clause. This interpretation makes it significantly easier to get prior, potentially more reliable, out-of-court statements before a jury, thereby aiding the fact-finding process.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Freeman