Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Exclude the Testimony of the Jailhouse Informants

Text: Defendant next contends the court should have excluded Jimenez's statements under Evidence Code section 352, and as a matter of federal due process. [14] Defendant asserts that jailhouse informant testimony is inherently unreliable, so that any probative value is outweighed by the testimony's prejudicial impact. Referring to the observations of state and federal courts ( People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, 617-618, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 701, 12 P.3d 1110; In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 957, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 838 P.2d 1222; Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands v. Bowie (9th Cir.2001) 243 F.3d 1109, 1114-1116), defendant seeks to document the unreliability inherent in jailhouse informant statements, and relies on many items outside the record on appeal. Defendant has cited authorities indicating that courts are aware of reliability issues concerning jailhouse informants. But we have consistently rejected claims that the testimony of jailhouse informants is inherently unreliable. ( People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1165, 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950.) Nothing defendant presents here causes us to reconsider this conclusion. The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to any trial court ruling on the admissibility of evidence. ( People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 129 P.3d 321 ( Guerra ).) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying defendant's motion to exclude the jailhouse informants' testimony.