Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Sinohui

California Supreme Court
28 Cal. 4th 205, 47 P.3d 629, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 783 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under California Evidence Code section 972(e)(2), the spousal testimony privilege does not apply where a defendant spouse is charged with a crime against a third person that was committed in the course of committing a crime against the testifying spouse, even if the defendant was not formally charged with the crime against the testifying spouse.


Facts:

  • Gina Loiaza was married to defendant Robert Gene Sinohui but had resumed a relationship with her former boyfriend, Gabriel Terrazas.
  • One evening, while Loiaza and Terrazas were in Loiaza's car in a secluded area, Sinohui and another man arrived in a separate vehicle.
  • Sinohui pointed a gun at Loiaza, ordered her out of the car, and then ordered Terrazas out.
  • As one man forced Terrazas into the trunk of Loiaza's car, the other man grabbed Loiaza and physically pushed her out of the way.
  • After Loiaza heard a struggle and a gunshot, Sinohui drove off in Loiaza's car with Terrazas in the trunk, leaving Loiaza behind.
  • The next morning, Sinohui told Loiaza they had to 'go for a ride'; Loiaza complied out of fear.
  • Sinohui drove Loiaza and their children in her car to a drainage ditch, where he and the other man unloaded what Loiaza presumed was Terrazas's body.
  • Terrazas's body, showing 43 stab wounds and one gunshot wound, was later found in the ditch.

Procedural Posture:

  • The state charged Robert Gene Sinohui in California trial court with kidnapping and murdering Gabriel Terrazas.
  • Before trial, Sinohui's wife, Gina Loiaza, asserted the spousal testimony privilege to avoid testifying.
  • The trial court compelled Loiaza's testimony, finding it fell under the exception in Evidence Code section 972(e)(2).
  • A jury found Sinohui guilty of murder and kidnapping.
  • Sinohui, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
  • The Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) reversed the conviction, holding the exception did not apply because Terrazas, not Loiaza, was the 'primary victim'.
  • The state, as petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court of California (highest court), which granted review.

Locked

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 the exception to the spousal testimony privilege under California Evidence Code section 972(e)(2) apply when a defendant, though not formally charged with a crime against their spouse, commits a crime against a third person that is part of a continuous course of criminal conduct and logically related to an uncharged crime against the spouse?


Opinions:

Majority - Brown, J.

Yes, the exception to the spousal testimony privilege applies. A court may compel spousal testimony under this exception even if the defendant is not formally charged with a crime against their spouse. The phrase 'in the course of committing a crime' against the spouse requires only that the crime against the third person and the crime against the spouse are part of a continuous course of criminal conduct and bear some logical relationship to each other. The plain language of § 972(e)(2) requires only that the defendant be 'charged with... a crime against... a third person,' unlike the language in a neighboring exception (§ 972(e)(1)) which explicitly requires a charge against the spouse. The legislative history shows 'in the course of' is shorthand for its precursor's language, 'while engaged in committing and connected with,' which establishes this two-part test. Because Sinohui committed false imprisonment against Loiaza to facilitate the kidnapping and murder of Terrazas, the acts were part of a continuous and logically related transaction, rendering the privilege inapplicable.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and broadens the 'crime against a third person' exception to the spousal testimony privilege. By eliminating the need for a formal charge against the testifying spouse, the court prioritizes substance over form, focusing on the defendant's conduct rather than the prosecutor's charging decisions. The established two-part 'continuous conduct and logical relationship' test creates a flexible standard that weakens the overall spousal privilege, making it easier for the prosecution to compel testimony from a spouse who was also victimized during the commission of a crime against another. This ruling reinforces the judicial trend of narrowly construing evidentiary privileges to promote the admission of relevant evidence and the ascertainment of truth in criminal proceedings.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query People v. Sinohui (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for People v. Sinohui