California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 2016 No. D068680Unpublished
Filed 1/15/16 P. v. Arias CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D068680
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV1103094)
JUAN LOPEZ ARIAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Jon
D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed.
David McNeil Morse, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Julie L. Garland,
Assistant Attorneys General, Charles C. Ragland and Paige B. Hazard, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Juan Lopez Arias of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187,
subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)) and found he personally used and discharged a firearm causing
death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Arias to a term of 50 years
to life in prison as follows: 25 years to life for first degree murder and 25 years to life for
discharging a firearm.
On appeal, Arias's sole contention is that the trial court abused its discretion by
'miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, 'after an examination of
the entire cause, including the evidence,' is of the 'opinion' that it is reasonably probable
that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the
8
absence of the error." (Watson, at p. 836.) Probability under Watson "does not mean
more likely than not, but merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility."
(People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 918.) Appellate review under
Watson "focuses not on what a reasonable jury could do, but what such a jury is likely to
have done in the absence of the error under consideration. In making that evaluation, an
appellate court may consider, among other things, whether the evidence supporting the
existing judgment is so relatively strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome
is so comparatively weak, that there is no reasonable probability the error of which the
defendant complains affected the result." (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142,
177.)
B. Analysis
We have listened to the 911 recording, and conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion admitting it. The recording provided insight into the Arlon
employees' observations of Davalos shortly after they discovered him. As a result, the
recording corroborated Arlon employees' live testimony and helped the jury evaluate
their credibility. The recording also established the timing of events, because two other
employees saw Arias return to Arlon before Davalos was found and Chiu called 911.
Even if we construed Chiu's statements on the 911 call such as, "He's shot in the back of
the head" and, "Where's the paramedics?" as overly emotional, those statements are not
"unduly shocking" considering the nature of the crime. (Boyce, at p. 688.)
Arias relies on this court's decision in People v. Diaz, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 362,
to argue the 911 recording "had a marked tendency to appeal to the jurors' sense of
9
sympathy." In Diaz, during the defendant's retrial for vehicular manslaughter, the trial
court allowed the jury to watch two videos about drunk driving that the defendant had
watched during his prior mandatory alcohol education programs. (Id. at p. 368.) The
trial court previously had reviewed the transcripts of both videos but only watched one of
them. (Id. at p. 369, fn. 6.) Both videos were over 25 minutes long and included
"numerous tearful testimonials from the families of victims of alcohol-related offenses,
statements from a prosecutor and a defense attorney concerning the high rates of
conviction for such offenses, and statements from a judge to the effect that punishment is
needed and is effective for alcohol-related driving offenses." (Id. at pp. 365, 370, 375.)
In their testimonials, the families of victims described the impact of the victims' deaths.
(Id. at p. 376.) The videos also included testimonials from individuals jailed for
vehicular offenses. (Id. at p. 382.) We concluded in Diaz that the trial court committed
reversible error because the videos "created a substantial danger of inflaming the jury's
passions by engendering similar feelings of sympathy for the victims of the charged
offenses and their families." (Id. at p. 388.) Additionally, the trial court should have
viewed both videos before ruling on their admissibility. (Id. at p. 379.)
Here, the trial court listened to the 12-minute recording before admitting it into
evidence. Unlike People v. Diaz, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 376, where the videos
depicted families of the victims tearfully discussing the impact alcohol-related offenses
had on their lives, Chiu maintained an even tone and was not particularly emotional as he
relayed information to the 911 dispatcher and kept count of chest compressions. The
videos in Diaz contained irrelevant information such as the opinions of attorneys and a
10
judge in another state. By contrast, the recording here included only the Arlon
employees' observations regarding their discovery that Davalos was injured, and in
response to the dispatcher's questions. (Diaz, at p. 376.) Accordingly, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by admitting the 911 recording.
C. Harmless Error
Even if the trial court erred when it admitted the 911 recording, such error would
be harmless under the Watson standard because abundant evidence supports Arias's first
degree murder conviction. During the police interview, Arias admitted shooting Davalos.
(See People v. Covarrubias (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 942, 952 [no prejudicial error
because the defendant admitted to killing the victim at the accident scene and during a
police interview].) Arias testified that he previously spoke about killing Davalos, and
admitted that he thought about killing him a week before doing so. Davalos was shot
with Arias's gun, and the latex gloves contained Arias's fingerprints. In light of this
overwhelming evidence of guilt, we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood Arias
would have received a more favorable verdict absent the court's admission of the 911
recording.
11
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
12
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by admitting a 911 recording of the crime scene, as the evidence was probative of the timing of events and corroborated witness testimony without being unduly prejudicial.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by admitting a 911 recording into evidence?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The recording provided insight into the Arlon employees' observations of Davalos shortly after they discovered him. As a result, the recording corroborated Arlon employees' live testimony and helped the jury evaluate their credibility.”
“Even if we construed Chiu's statements on the 911 call such as, "He's shot in the back of the head" and, "Where's the paramedics?" as overly emotional, those statements are not "unduly shocking" considering the nature of the crime.”