So I'll quote three paragraphs from the sole Court of Appeal opinion during this period and make a very brief comment about it. These paragraphs are the core holding of the opinion, in a case where the defendant receives 85 years to life as his sentence:
"Corporal Jason Radcliffe served as the primary
investigating officer in appellant’s case. He testified at trial as
the People’s expert on the Colonia Chiques gang. He also testified as a percipient witness about his investigation of the
shooting and appellant’s arrest in Bakersfield. He described
questioning appellant for several hours after the arrest. The
People asked whether he “form[ed] an opinion as to who the
shooter was on the surveillance video.” Corporal Radcliffe
responded, “[o]ff the totality of the surveillance cameras and then
holding out until I actually had physical contact and the
conversation with Mr. Reyes, I believe 100 percent that was Mr.
Reyes who conducted the shooting.” He explained how the car
appellant was driving at the time of his arrest appeared identical
to the one in the video, including a small dent on the left rear
quarter panel. The last three digits of the license plate matched
as well. Appellant was wearing a blue tank top like the one worn
by the shooter. Radcliffe concluded: “[T]hen actually getting to
sit down, talk and see Mr. Reyes and deal with his – his
appearance and mannerisms, I was absolutely confident that Mr.
Reyes was the shooter.”
Appellant argues Corporal Radcliffe usurped the function of
the jury when he opined that appellant shot M.C. He compares
Radcliffe’s testimony to that of a similar “dual purpose” witness
in People v. Rouston (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 997 (Rouston). The
witness in Rouston, like here, served as both primary investigator
and gang expert. He testified defendant fired the shot that
struck the victim. He based his opinion mostly on an
eyewitness’s account of the crime, as well as audio recordings of
the shooting and forensic evidence about bullet trajectories.
Rouston reversed, concluding the witness “provided improper
opinions on [the defendant’s] guilt.” (Id. at p. 1011.) It stated:
“The jury heard the other witness testimony and was equally
competent ‘to weigh the evidence and determine what the facts were.’” (Ibid., quoting People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038,
1048.) “Given [his] status as a gang expert, the designated
investigator who testified repeatedly throughout the trial, and a
detective, ‘the jury had every reason to look to [him] as a far
better judge than they could be’ regarding the reliability of other
witnesses’ testimony, and what inferences to draw from the
prosecution’s other evidence.” (Id. at p. 1012, quoting People v.
Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 169.)
Rouston is distinguishable. Corporal Radcliffe did not base
his opinion on the testimony of other witnesses, or claim special
expertise in identifying people using video. He identified
appellant as the shooting suspect only after participating in his
arrest, questioning him, and comparing his “appearances and
mannerisms” to those he observed in the video’s footage prior to
the arrest. The trial court properly allowed this testimony."
Really?
