Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Mike Wasserman

Text: Mike Wasserman and Andy Beal were fraternity brothers of Craig Miller, and were with him and Mary Beth Sowers at the shopping center on the night of their abduction. As noted above, Beal noticed Miller and Sowers in defendant's car, and approached them. Miller swore at Beal and told him to leave; Charlene slapped Beal, and defendant's car was driven away. Immediately thereafter Wasserman approached Beal in the parking lot, and observed that Beal, normally not an excitable person, was uptight and surprised, and it appeared his adrenalin was flowing. Beal told Wasserman, You're not going to believe what happened. He recounted the above events, and as he finished he saw defendant's car being driven out of the parking lot and exclaimed, There is the car they're in. That's the car. Beal was hypnotized by the police before the preliminary hearing, and his testimony was excluded at trial pursuant to People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18 [181 Cal. Rptr. 243, 723 P.2d 1354]. Over defendant's objection the court allowed Wasserman's testimony concerning the above statements under the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule, and also ruled the testimony would not violate defendant's confrontation rights. Defendant reasserts his objections. a. Spontaneous declaration. (25) Under Evidence Code section 1240 a statement is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule if it Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception. We believe Beal's statement falls plainly within the exception. It was clearly a startling event; his friend Miller swore at him, telling him to leave, and a strange woman slapped him in the face. Beal appeared surprised, excited, and puzzled. He made the statement to Wasserman while defendant's car was still in the parking lot, and while he saw it depart. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence as a spontaneous declaration. (See, e.g., People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 317-320 [246 Cal. Rptr. 886, 753 P.2d 1082].) b. Confrontation. (26) Defendant cites no case in which we or the high court have held admission of a spontaneous declaration violates a defendant's confrontation rights under California or federal Constitutions. In a number of cases the high court has made clear that the focus of its concern has been to insure that there `are indicia of reliability ...' ... to `afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.' ( Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301, 92 S.Ct. 2308].) Later, in Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 66 [65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608, 100 S.Ct. 2531], the court held this reliability can be inferred without more ... where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. We agree with our Court of Appeal that the spontaneous declaration exception meets this requirement ( In re Damon H. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 471, 478, fn. 8 [211 Cal. Rptr. 623]), and hence we reject defendant's confrontation claim (see People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 905-906 [254 Cal. Rptr. 508, 765 P.2d 940]). In any event, even if we did not follow the Roberts/Damon H. approach, we believe the facts of the declaration in this case establish the requisite reliability. (See Dutton v. Evans (1970) 400 U.S. 74, 88-89 [27 L.Ed.2d 213, 226-227, 91 S.Ct. 210] [plur. opn.] [listing indicia of reliability relevant to determining reliability of declaration introduced against confrontation clause challenge]; Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra, 400 U.S. at p. 213 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 302] [some of these `indicia of reliability' referred to in Dutton must be present for the hearsay to be admissible over confrontation objections].) Beal's explicit description of the incident  which he recounted to Wasserman immediately after the events, and while the car was being driven away  was based on Beal's firsthand knowledge, thus making remote the possibility it was the product of faulty recollection. The spontaneous nature of the statement is evident from the fact that it followed immediately after a bizarre and traumatic experience. Additionally, the evidence was fully corroborated by Charlene, a percipient witness.