Conviction for Robbery Reversed by Court of Appeals (PC 211)

Recently, the California Court of Appeals ruled that a criminal defendant does not receive a fair trial where a court fails to inform both parties and the jury of the details regarding a victim’s recanted statements. The appellate court explained that a trial court errs when it allows testimony that is known to be false to be presented at trial without a limiting instruction from the judge.

In People v. Wilson, defendant Christopher P. Wilson appealed his conviction of second-degree robbery, false imprisonment by violence, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm with the intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members. Wilson claimed that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony identifying Wilson as the robber despite clear knowledge that it was false.

Following the alleged robbery in October 2009, the victim signed an un-sworn statement in June 2010 declaring that the testimony he provided at the preliminary hearing in February 2010 was factually incorrect. When the matter was called for trial in February 2011, the victim refused to testify about the incident and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights regarding his preliminary hearing testimony. The prosecutor expressed his opinion that the victim’s refusal to testify was nothing more than an attempt to avoid cooperating out of concern for his safety. Ultimately, the trial court found that the victim had properly invoked his right against self-incrimination and allowed the prosecution to read his preliminary hearing testimony into the record.

The appellate court explained that a trial court errs when it allows testimony that is known to be false to be presented at trial without a limiting instruction from the judge.

Wilson argued that the court knowingly allowed testimony it knew to be false to be used at trial. He also claimed that the court compounded the error by not disclosing to both parties and the jury that the victim had recanted his claim that Wilson robbed him. The California Court of Appeal cited People v. Garner to support its finding that the trial court had denied Wilson a fair trial. This Garner court held that “when the People wish to go forward in reliance upon the testimony of a recanting witness, fundamental fairness would require, at a minimum, that the jury (1) be advised precisely why the witness is being allowed to refuse to testify, and (2) be instructed that they should draw all reasonable inferences therefrom concerning the witness’s credibility and the guilt or innocence of the accused.”

The appellate court reasoned that the prosecutor’s lack of knowledge regarding his only witness’s recantation should not have led to a different result than that reached by the Garner court. More significantly, the jury never had the opportunity to consider the victim’s testimony in light of his claim to his counsel that it was a lie. After being informed that the victim had recanted his preliminary hearing testimony, the court had an obligation to inform both parties and the jury of the situation. By allowing the jury to view the evidence solely under a “fear of retaliation” premise, Wilson’s right to a fair trial was compromised.

The Law Offices of Wallin & Klarich have been winning jury trials for over 40 years. We do not let our clients’ legal rights be taken away by overzealous prosecutors or judges. Our extensive knowledge of criminal procedure allows us to make certain that all of your legal rights are protected. Your Wallin & Klarich attorney will guide you through the entire criminal process until its successful conclusion.

Our offices are located in Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina, Victorville, Torrance, and Sherman Oaks. Please call us today at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245 to discuss your case. We will get through this together.