Opinion ID: 2604134
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Taped Statement by Maurice Stevenson.

Text: Defendant contends the admission of a tape recording of a statement by Maurice Stevenson was prejudicial error because it was inadmissible hearsay. The statement was taken by a police officer at the hospital about two hours after the shooting as Maurice was recovering from surgery. Defendant claims the statement did not qualify for admission under the spontaneous statement exception (Evid. Code, § 1240) or as a past recollection recorded (Evid. Code, § 1237). However, at trial, no objection was made to the introduction of this evidence. (Evid. Code, § 353.) As an alternative attack, defendant urges that the failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Attorney General contends that the failure to object bars consideration of the issue on appeal. (2a) He also contends, however, that the failure to object does not amount to ineffectiveness of counsel. He is correct. The tape was played during the direct examination of Maurice Stevenson and during the prosecutor's closing argument. It is three minutes long and gives a brief account which is consistent with Maurice's trial testimony. In the recording Maurice said: (1) He and his uncle were waxing the car when defendant came out of nowhere; (2) defendant took two rings, a watch and close to $200 cash from him; (3) the gun was either a .38 or a .357; (4) defendant shot him and his uncle and then ran; (5) he had had no previous problems with defendant and did not know the reason for the shootings; (6) aside from the name Oscar Gates, defendant was also known as Kojac and Fred. The record reveals no reason for counsel's failure to object and is thus insufficient to establish ineffectiveness of counsel. (3) To establish ineffectiveness of counsel defendant must show (1) that counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys and (2) that it is reasonably probable a determination more favorable to the appellant would have resulted in the absence of counsel's failings. ( People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584 [189 Cal. Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].) (2b) Counsel may well have had strategic reasons for raising no objection since the tape contained the same falsehood as Maurice's trial testimony regarding his ignorance of the reason for the shooting. It is also possible that counsel determined an objection would have been futile since the tape would qualify under a hearsay exception. Where, as here, the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, and there are plausible strategic reasons for his action, the ineffectiveness of counsel claim must fail on appeal. ( People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [152 Cal. Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859, 2 A.L.R. 4th 1].) In any event, it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict had it not heard this tape recording. ( People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 584.)