People v. Meza CA3
Filed 6/26/23 P. v. Meza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
THE PEOPLE, C095954
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE013350)
v.
JOSE MEZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Jose Meza guilty of multiple incidents of corporal injury on Y.D., a person he was dating and the mother of his two children. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The prosecution’s evidence regarding one incident on August 9, 2020, charged in count three, included a recording of a 911 call by a witness Y.D. flagged down on the street when defendant was chasing her. The witness, Marques Marzetta, did not testify at trial. Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call under the spontaneous utterance exception to
1
the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1240) and asserts his conviction on count three therefore must be reversed. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant and Y.D. were in a romantic relationship for 16 years and had two children together.1 On August 9, 2020, at around 8:00 a.m., Y.D. and defendant got into an argument that turned physical. Y.D. ran into the street, flagged down a passing car, and told the driver (Marzetta) who stopped that defendant had hit her. Marzetta called 911. The 911 call at around 12:30 p.m. was recorded. The recording was played to the jury and admitted into evidence. In the recording, the operator asked: “Okay, are you with her, or are you just seeing this?” Marzetta answered: “Yeah, uh, I was driving literally up the street, and she was just running from him. Um, and then now I see him, like as soon as, me and another gentleman, and then as soon as we pulled up he kind of just jetted off, but she does have a, uh, a mark on her head, and she does like have a big scratch on her head.” The operator asked how old she looked. Marzetta did not at first answer the question but said instead: “Um, yeah, uh, it’s a pretty volatile situation so, can you guys get here pretty quickly.” The operator assured him they would and then Marzetta added: “But looks about maybe twenty, 27-ish, 28.” The operator asked: “Okay. And who was chasing her?” Marzetta answered: “Another gentleman. I’m not too sure exactly who it was. I kind of seen the aftermath of her like running across the street, and I—I kind of pulled aside to make sure she was okay.” He added: “Um, and then once I did that he kind of just jetted off.” The operator asked for a more detailed description of Y.D. and Marzetta answered: “Hispanic, short, um, black hair, blue jeans, and, uh, a dark blue
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)