Court Opinion

ID: 9719440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:52:54.953791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.365929
License: Public Domain

DISCO, J.,* Dissenting.
I would reverse on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence presented in the prosecution’s case-in-chief to corroborate Michael and Brandon’s out-of-court statements, which were later repudiated at trial, identifying appellant as the one who set the fire.
In People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621 [7 Cal.Rptr. 273, 354 P.2d 865], the California Supreme Court held that an extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed at trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime. In Gould, two defendants were convicted of burglarizing an apartment. The victim identified the defendant Marudas, from a photographic lineup, as the man who was standing outside her apartment at the time of the burglary. However, she was unable to confirm this identification at the time of trial. The court found that, although the pretrial identification was admissible under the hearsay exception for prior identification statements, it was the only evidence connecting Marudas to the crime and reversed, holding that the out-of-court identification could not sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborating evidence. (Id., at p. 631.)
More recently, under factual circumstances analogous to those encountered here, the California Supreme Court, in In re Miguel L. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 100 [185 Cal.Rptr. 120, 649 P.2d 703], reversed an order sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition on the grounds that the only evidence against the minor was the testimony of a self-declared accomplice which was repudiated at trial. The accomplice, Arnaldo G., had been arrested for possessing a weapon and was interviewed by a police sergeant at juvenile hall. The sergeant told Arnaldo that he had additional information implicating Arnaldo in several burglaries. Arnaldo then admitted his involvement in a number of these, including a burglary at the Ross home *138in which he identified Miguel and a third person as his accomplices. Subsequently, in a second interview with his attorney present, Arnaldo discussed the Ross burglary in detail and put most of the responsibility for the crime off on Miguel. He then asked whether the police would allow him “to go home on supervision. ” In exchange for his cooperation with the police and his expected testimony in court, he was granted immunity from prosecution for the Ross burglary and three others to which he had confessed. When Arnaldo was called as a witness at Miguel’s jurisdictional hearing, he stated that he didn’t want to testify. The court told him he had to answer the questions. He thereafter denied the veracity of the statements he had made during the police investigation and specifically denied that Miguel had participated in the burglary of the Ross home.
The Supreme Court reversed the order sustaining the petition on the basis of Gould, noting first that out-of-court statements which cannot be confirmed at trial lack the traditional indicia of reliability possessed by sworn testimony which has been subjected to cross-examination in a formal judicial proceeding. The court stated that such formal procedures are necessary in order to test the veracity, recollection, and possible bias of the witnesses, as well as the effect of official conduct toward the witness. {Id., 32 Cal.3d at p. 107.) The court then stated that there were other circumstances present which also tended to discredit the witness’ extrajudicial statements. Arnaldo was an admitted accomplice whose testimony, even in a formal judicial proceeding, would be considered suspect. Generally, the court noted, evidence from an accomplice is regarded as untrustworthy. An accomplice is likely to give testimony in the hope or expectation of lenience or immunity. Further, an accomplice has a strong motive to fabricate testimony which minimizes his participation in the offense and transfers responsibility for the crime to others. {Id., at p. 108.) The court then held that the constitutional requirements of due process prohibited a finding of criminal conduct from being based solely on an accusation which lacked the traditional indicia of trustworthiness and also came from an unreliable source. (Id., at p. 110.)
The present case falls squarely within the rule set forth in Gould and amplified in Miguel. Michael and Brandon’s statements accusing appellant of setting the fire were not made under oath and were not subject to cross-examination in any formal judicial proceeding. They were made during the course of investigation by school authorities into the cause of the fire.1 *139Michael and Brandon were suspects along with Rita, Greg, and appellant. All were present at the school that day; all were playing with firecrackers and matches; and all were at or near Vicky’s locker shortly before the fire started. All were subject to the school’s administrative sanctions, as well as criminal sanctions, for any involvement they might have had in the crime. The concerns underlying Gould and Miguel thus exist here. Michael and Brandon’s statements not only lack the traditional indicia of trustworthiness, they may have been prompted by the same self-serving motives that characterize accomplice testimony.
The defense moved to dismiss the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1 at the close of the People’s case on the grounds that Michael and Brandon’s repudiated out-of-court statements were insufficient to sustain the petition. The trial court denied the motion, but did not make any finding as to the existence or extent of evidence corroborating these statements.
No standard is set out in the Gould to Miguel line of cases for measuring the quantum of corroborating evidence that is necessary before the case may be submitted to or considered by the trier of fact. Fortunately, however, there is a well-developed body of law interpreting Penal Code section 111 which requires, in language similar to that stated in Gould and Miguel, that accomplice testimony be “corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.” The formal requirements of Penal Code section 1111 are, of course, not applicable in a juvenile proceeding because an order sustaining a petition is not a conviction within the meaning of the statute. (See In re Mitchell P. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 946 [151 Cal.Rptr. 330, 587 P.2d 1144].) However, the policy underlying Penal Code section 1111 is the same as that underlying Gould and Miguel—namely, to prevent a conviction from being based solely on testimony that is generally understood to be untrustworthy, because it was neither sworn nor subject to cross-examination and/or because it was given by one who has a self-serving motive to implicate another. I see no reason why the case law interpreting the corroboration requirement under Penal Code *140section 1111 is not equally applicable in juvenile and criminal proceedings when such a requirement is raised by application of the Gould/Miguel rule.
While the majority purports to adopt the standard developed under Penal Code section 1111, it does not go on to apply the case authority developed under that section to the facts encountered here. If the case law that has been developed under Penal Code section 1111 were applied to this case, the independent evidence connecting appellant to the crime would not be sufficient to sustain the petition. The majority relies heavily on the fact that appellant ran back to the fence with Brandon and Michael shortly before smoke was seen rising from Vicky’s locker. This evidence, however, still only places appellant at the scene along with Michael and Brandon; it does not connect appellant to the crime. Mere presence at the scene of the crime and opportunity to commit the offense is not sufficient corroboration under Penal Code section 1111. (People v. Boyce (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 726, 737 [168 Cal.Rptr. 219]; People v. Lloyd (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 236, 241 [61 Cal.Rptr. 138]; People v. Thurmond (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 121, 124 [338 P.2d 472].)
The added fact that Michael stated “We did it. We did it,” when he arrived slightly ahead of Brandon and appellant back at the fence would constitute independent corroborating evidence, in my view; but this evidence cannot be considered in ruling on the propriety of denying the motion to dismiss under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1. Rita’s testimony that Michael made such a statement was stricken as hearsay by the trial court on motion of the defense. No other evidence of such a statement having been made was introduced in the People’s case.
The only other evidence produced in the People’s case that could be regarded as corroborating Michael and Brandon’s statements is the fact that both Michael and Brandon told the authorities that appellant set the fire. Again, however, the principles relating to the admissibility of accomplice testimony are applicable here. The testimony of one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of another accomplice under Penal Code section 1111. (People v. Boyce, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d 726 at p. 737; People v. Scofield (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1026 [95 Cal.Rptr. 405].) Michael and Brandon are unreliable sources of information for the same reasons that accomplices are unreliable sources of information, and the testimony of one cannot suffice to corroborate that of the other.
After a brief reference to the circumstantial evidence which it considers independently connects appellant with the crime, the majority moves to a discussion of the reliability of Michael and Brandon’s out-of-court statements. The court states that “nothing was presented to the court to cast *141doubt on the veracity of the two out-of-court statements, and nothing is presented to us,” and concludes that the “probative value of their prior statements was greater than the probative value of [their] repudiation. ” This, however, miscasts the issue as one of assessing the relative credibility of the out-of-court accusation and the in-court repudiation. The corroboration requirement goes to the admissibility, not the weight, of evidence. It is separate and apart from the requirement that a case be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The corroboration requirement, for example, mandates an acquittal if accomplice testimony is not corroborated, even if the trier of fact believes the accomplice and is convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. McRae (1947) 31 Cal.2d 184, 187 [187 P.2d 741], cert. den. 334 U.S. 843 [92 L.Ed. 1767, 68 S.Ct. 1511].)
Applying the standards that have developed and are well accepted in the context of the law requiring corroboration of accomplices, I believe that the motion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1 should have been granted. I would reverse the order sustaining the supplemental petition.
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 17, 1983, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 20, 1983.

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

Appellant and the other minors were interviewed by the school administrator, Peter Nichols, and by several learning directors, including Timothy Dunn, on the school day following the fire. The minors were interviewed first in a group, and then individually. Appellant admitted being on campus when he was interviewed, and claimed Gregory was responsible for the fire. Michael did not accuse appellant when he was first interviewed. However, at the end of the day he asked to speak to Mr. Dunn. They went into Mr. Dunn’s office, and Michael began sobbing. He said that he was more involved than he initially indicated and *139that he wanted to tell the complete story. He said he saw appellant open the locker, take some papers from it, and set the fire with matches. He later repeated this to the Oxnard Fire Department’s arson investigator, Hugh Logue. At trial, Michael said he did not see appellant light the fire and had lied earlier because he thought the police were going to take him to juvenile hall. The next day, Brandon told Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dunn that he saw appellant light the fire. He said he walked away because he did not want to be a part of it. He later repeated this to Captain Logue. At trial, Brandon said he did not see appellant set the fire and had lied before because he was frightened and wanted to get the whole situation over with. He stated that Mr. Nichols was yelling at them, threatened to call the police, and told them they would not graduate unless they worked over the Easter vacation and paid for the lockers.