People v. Ramirez

California Court of Appeal Apr 26, 2019 No. B289077Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a hospital record containing a hearsay statement by the victim, as the statement failed to qualify as a dying declaration and its exclusion did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a hospital record containing a hearsay statement attributed to the victim.
Whether the victim's statement qualified as a dying declaration under Evidence Code section 1242.
Whether the exclusion of the hospital record violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with the trial court’s conclusion there was no evidence to support a finding the victim believed his death was imminent at the time the alleged statement was made.”

“Defendant has not shown he was precluded from presenting a defense.”

Filed 4/26/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B289077

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA451103) v.

HECTOR MANUEL RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed.

Maggie Shrout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi and Charles J. Sarosy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Hector Manuel Ramirez of one count of felony hit-and-run driving causing death or injury to another. Defendant contends the trial court committed evidentiary error by precluding admission of a post- accident hospital record that contained a statement attributed to the victim. Defendant argues the record should have been admitted as a business record and under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule, and that the court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional right to present a defense by precluding its admission. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the early morning hours of September 19, 2016, Latanya Weaver was standing outside the residence hotel where she lived, smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk. It was around 1:00 a.m. and she had just finished her shift at a nearby restaurant and had walked home. Calvin Eatman,1 who also lived in the hotel, walked past her and they exchanged greetings. As Ms. Weaver continued to smoke her cigarette, she saw Mr. Eatman walk down the street and cross to a bus stop. After a few moments, she noticed that Mr. Eatman had stepped off the curb and was standing in the street, apparently looking to see if the bus was coming. There was no traffic on the street at the time, just a few parked cars. While Mr. Eatman continued to look down the street, Ms. Weaver saw a small, four-door red car approaching fast in

People v. Ramirez

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B289077

HECTOR MANUEL RAMIREZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STRATTON, J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief