Opinion ID: 1247657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Introduction of Fields's Statement.

Text: (25) Defendant contends that the admission of a heavily edited version of Fields's extrajudicial statement violated People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d 518 and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476, 88 S.Ct. 1620]. Aranda allows admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statement in a joint trial only if all parts of the statement which implicate any codefendants are effectively deleted: By effective deletions, we mean not only direct and indirect identifications of codefendants but any statements that could be employed against nondeclarant codefendants once their identity is otherwise established. ( People v. Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 530.) The edited statement of Fields that was admitted was extremely limited  that Fields had told Sergeant Pang that he had gone into Dukar's store about noon and was wearing a light color suit. The court gave an instruction that the jury was to consider this evidence against Fields only. Defendant argues that this statement indirectly implicated him because it tended to corroborate Hodges's testimony as well as the identifications made by a number of eyewitnesses. Aranda protections, however, do not go that far. Fields's statement did not link defendant to the crime any more or less than he was already linked. The statement is similar to that which the court in Aranda indicated would have been acceptable: I was one of the persons who robbed the store but I will tell you nothing more. (63 Cal.2d at p. 531, fn. 10.) (See also People v. Dominguez (1981) 121 Cal. App.3d 481, 506-507 [175 Cal. Rptr. 445].)
(26) Defendant contends that Fields's statement was also inadmissible as a fruit of the illegal arrest and the illegal statements given by Hodges. In reviewing the trial court's ruling denying the motion to suppress this evidence, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the trial court's determination and resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of the finding below. ( People v. Superior Court ( Sosa ), supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 887.) Based on Hodges's statements on December 5 and 9, Officer Pang obtained a warrant for Fields's arrest. On December 29, 1980, Officer Templeman of the Alhambra Police Department detained Fields and ran a warrant check which revealed outstanding traffic warrants. About the same time, Templeman's supervisor arrived and told him Fields was wanted for murder. They took Fields to the police station on the traffic warrants and called Officer Pang to verify the murder warrant. There was a discrepancy in the warrant about the race of the person wanted, and Pang confirmed the wanted person was Black. Officer Pang told Templeman that Hodges had implicated Fields at a preliminary hearing and that there was plenty of probable cause to arrest him. Although there was some dispute about whether Officer Pang told Templeman to arrest Fields on the warrant or on the basis of Hodges's testimony at the preliminary hearing, the trial court found that Pang's reference to Hodges's preliminary hearing testimony and statement that there was plenty of probable cause supported the legality of the arrest. We defer to the trial court's finding in this regard and conclude that its ruling must be upheld. [9]