People v. Stringfellow CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 2016 No. F070251Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a victim's statements under Evidence Code section 1240, as the statements were made while the victim was under the stress of excitement caused by the assault.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay statements under the spontaneous statement exception of Evidence Code section 1240.
Whether the admission of the victim's statements violated the defendant's confrontation rights.

Disposition. affirmed

Filed 7/21/16 P. v. Stringfellow CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F070251 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF43937) v.

ROBERT JAMES STRINGFELLOW, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge.

Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Nicholas M. Fogg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Robert James Stringfellow was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. At trial, the victim did not testify but a statement she made to officers approximately 15 minutes after the assault was admitted pursuant to Evidence Code1 section 1240. Stringfellow contends admission of this statement was error requiring reversal of his conviction. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The afternoon of April 23, 2014, Stringfellow arrived at Samantha Crosby’s trailer. Crosby asked him to leave. Instead, Stringfellow pushed Crosby against the trailer’s exterior wall, punched her near the collarbone, and struck her collarbone with the handle of a scythe. Crosby felt the scythe’s blade pressing into her, but she grabbed the scythe and held it away. Crosby ended up on the ground, with Stringfellow hunched over her. Kalen Collins, Crosby’s neighbor, was in his trailer when he heard screaming. He went outside and saw Crosby on the ground with Stringfellow hunched over her; he shouted at them. Stringfellow got up, walked to his truck, and drove away. Collins saw Stringfellow place an item that looked like an axe or a garden tool into his truck before driving away. As Stringfellow left, Crosby ran toward Collins, “frantic—like in a run,” asking him to call 911. Collins called 911 immediately and sheriff deputies arrived about five minutes later. When Corporal Paul Speers and Deputy Ashley Grossen arrived, Crosby appeared to have cried recently and looked upset. The deputies also noticed redness on her chest near the collarbone. Grossen began speaking with Crosby while Speers stood 10 to 15 feet away with Collins; Speers could hear Crosby and Grossen. Grossen asked Crosby what happened. Crosby stated Stringfellow came to the trailer looking for her boyfriend; Stringfellow hit

People v. Stringfellow CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief