Opinion ID: 2599941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Santiago Ontiveros

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding statements made by the witness Santiago Ontiveros during a police interview. When Ontiveros testified at trial, he denied that defendant had told him he was involved in a robbery or that Ontiveros had told anyone else that defendant had admitted being involved in a robbery. He further testified that he did not remember any conversation with a San Jose police officer in March of 1979. When the prosecutor asked him how he could flatly deny telling anyone that defendant had committed a robbery, but also testify that he did not remember what he told the police, he stated, It's in my nature. I wouldn't tell anything to begin with. Over a hearsay objection, a police officer testified that in March of 1979 he interviewed Ontiveros, who said that defendant had told him that defendant and Jesse Perez were involved in the robbery at the Hudson gas station. In addition, the prosecutor was permitted to play for the jury a portion of the tape-recorded interview during which Ontiveros told an officer that he did not know anything about the murder, but that defendant had told him that Jesse Perez was on the back of the motorcycle during the robbery. The trial court admitted the tape and the testimony as prior inconsistent statements. (Evid.Code, § 1235.) A witness's prior statement that is inconsistent with his or her testimony is admissible so long as the witness is given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. (Evid.Code, §§ 770, 1235.) Defendant complains that the trial court failed to make a factual finding that Ontiveros's testimony was inconsistent with his prior statement, a prerequisite for the admission of those statements. No such explicit finding is required. A ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto; a separate or formal finding is unnecessary unless required by statute. (Evid.Code, § 402, subd. (c); see People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 935, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 824 P.2d 571.) Furthermore, Ontiveros's insistence that he never told anyone that defendant had admitted being involved in the robbery was plainly inconsistent with his prior statements to the officer.