Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealadmissibility

defendantstatuteappeal

Related Cases

People v. Guzman, 8 Cal.5th 673, 453 P.3d 1130, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,669, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,336

Facts

Alejandro O. Guzman was convicted after a jury heard a recorded phone conversation between the mother of one of the victims and his niece, which the mother recorded without the niece's consent. The recording was intended to be used to cross-examine the niece, who was expected to testify for the defense. Guzman objected to the admission of the recording, citing Penal Code section 632(d), which prohibits the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the statute. However, the Court of Appeal found that this provision had been abrogated by the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision of the California Constitution.

A jury convicted defendant Alejandro O. Guzman of two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child after it heard a recorded phone conversation between the mother of one of the victims and defendant's niece. The mother had secretly recorded the conversation without the niece's consent, thereby violating Penal Code section 632.

Issue

Did the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision of the California Constitution abrogate the exclusionary rule of Penal Code section 632(d) in criminal proceedings?

We granted review to determine the continued viability of section 632(d) in light of the limits placed on the exclusion of evidence by the 'Right to Truth-in-Evidence' provision of the Constitution.

Rule

The Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision of the California Constitution states that relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding, except as provided by statute enacted by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Proposition 8 contains a provision known as the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, now codified at article I, section 28(f)(2). In relevant part, the provision states: 'Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding.'

Analysis

The court determined that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision superseded section 632(d) to the extent that it demanded the suppression of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. The court noted that the recording was relevant evidence and could not be excluded under the constitutional provision. The court also found that the legislative amendments to section 632 did not revive the exclusionary remedy that had been abrogated by the constitutional amendment.

We conclude that to the extent section 632(d) demanded the suppression of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding, it was abrogated when the voters approved Proposition 8.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that the recording was admissible and that Guzman's conviction was valid.

Because the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusions, we affirm its judgment.

Who won?

The People (the prosecution) prevailed in the case because the court upheld the admissibility of the recording, which was crucial to the prosecution's case against Guzman.

The Court of Appeal, however, found that section 632(d) has been abrogated in the relevant part by 'the “Right to Truth in Evidence” provision of the California Constitution.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

United States ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG, 87 F.4th 157, 117 Fed.R.Serv.3d 798

U.S. v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247

Derechin v. State University of New York, 963 F.2d 513, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,457, 60 USLW 2687, 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 685, 75 Ed. Law Rep. 132

Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 57 USLW 2144, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 606, 22 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 698, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14107A

Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03626