Appellate court rules that specific objection at trial on grounds of self-incrimination is necessary to avoid introduction of precustody/pre-Miranda statements defendant makes to detective
On May 10, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, ruled that a specific objection at trial on the grounds of self-incrimination is necessary to avoid introduction of the defendant’s precustody/pre-Miranda statements that she made to the investigating officer.
The defendant was charged with several felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon. During trial, defendant’s counsel objected to the introduction of evidence that the defendant failed to keep appointments to speak with the detective assigned to the case, arguing that the proffered evidence was unduly prejudicial under California Evidence Code section 352. Counsel also made a generic reference to the “Fifth Amendment.”
The trial court overruled the objection that the proffered evidence was unduly prejudicial. The detective was then allowed to testify not only about the missed appointments, but also testified about substantive statements the defendant made to him, specifically that she did not want to talk to him about the case and refused to provide him with a statement. Defense counsel did not object to the introduction of those statements and proceeded to cross-examine the detective. The jury convicted the defendant of five felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon.
Defendant appealed and argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in allowing the detective to testify about the statements the defendant made to him. The Court of Appeal found that through her conduct and statements, the defendant had invoked her constitutional right to remain silent. The court held that she forfeited her right to object to the introduction of the statements she made to the detective because her counsel’s general reference that she agreed with the trial court, holding that counsel’s generic reference to the “Fifth Amendment” was insufficient to preserve the objection. Instead, defense counsel should have made a specific objection concerning the defendant’s right against self-incrimination and should have specifically moved to exclude the defendant’s statements to the detective. However, defense counsel had only objected to testimony about the defendant’s missed appointments with the detective.
The court went on to state that the testimony concerning defendant’s failure to keep appointments with the detective, after invoking her right to remain silent, should have been excluded, but concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the properly admitted evidence against the defendant supported the jury’s verdict. The court upheld the defendant’s conviction.
The takeaway: Although the court held that introduction of the testimony was harmless error, the issue could have been avoided by making a specific objection to all of the testimony that the detective was going to provide. A pre-trial hearing under Evidence Code section 402 could have avoided the issue altogether. The importance of protecting the record by making a specific objection and articulating the basis of that objection and the evidence sought to be excluded cannot be overemphasized.
The case is People v. Ramos, Case No. C065059
Chambers Law Firm specializes in criminal defense and is based in Irvine, California, with a second office in Los Angeles County. Dan E. Chambers, the founder of Chambers Law Firm, has been in practice for over 20 years and is a former Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County. Dan represents clients in Orange County, Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire. Dan’s practice ranges from DUI defense and other misdemeanors to serious felonies, including homicide, three strike cases, domestic violence, drug charges, sexual assault and federal criminal cases. If you or someone close to you has been arrested or charged with a crime, please contact Dan today at 714-760-4088 for a free consultation.
