Opinion ID: 1247657
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aranda.

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].)