Opinion ID: 2590700
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subsequent reduction in Loar's sentence

Text: Next, defendant claims that the trial court exacerbated the unfair prejudice by ordering that Loar's prior testimony be read without reference to any subsequent reduction in Loar's sentence. Defendant asserts that after Loar testified in the 1988 trial, the original prosecutor, Mr. Hodgman, asked a superior court in secret to modify Loar's previously imposed sentence in another case based on his assistance in the Wilson case. In the retrial, the prosecution conceded Loar received a reduced sentence, but maintained there was no prior deal made in exchange for Loar's testimony. The prosecution explained that Hodgman assisted Loar in reducing his sentence because Loar spent time in jail awaiting his trial testimony and lost credits he would have otherwise earned in state prison. The trial court here concluded that from its reading of all the documents, it may be that Mr. Loar hoped for a reduction in his sentence, but there is no evidence that there was any agreement or promise from the district attorney. However, the court suggested that defendant could subpoena Hodgman to question him about any prior deal Loar had in exchange for his testimony. There is no evidence in the record that defendant did so. As noted above, the prosecution explained the reason why Hodgman subsequently requested leniency for Loar. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that there was no agreement, we must defer to it. (See People v. Fairbank, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1249, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 784, 947 P.2d 1321.) Indeed, on appeal, defendant mainly asserts that Loar was hoping to gain special treatment in exchange for his testimony; he does not argue that there was a `preexisting arrangement,' either explicit or implicit, between Loar and the prosecution. [9] ( Id. at p. 1247, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 784, 947 P.2d 1321.) Thus, defendant's claim that the trial court improperly failed tell the jury about Loar's subsequent sentence reduction is without merit.