VIRAY

People v. VIRAY

Bad Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 1186·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1909·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14377·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10518
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 14, 2005H026515California14,516 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

Defendant Carmelita Viray was convicted of financial abuse of an elder (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e)) after the court, sitting without a jury, found that she attempted to steal a house from her aunt by duping her into signing a deed the aunt believed would transfer a different property. On appeal defendant contends that the prosecutor violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel and engaged in extreme misconduct by interrogating her at length on the morning of her arraignment. We hold that while the interrogation did violate her right to counsel, its admission in evidence cannot be charged as error because no objection was raised below. We also hold that, assuming the interrogation may be viewed as prosecutorial misconduct, the present record does not reflect the level of egregiousness necessary to justify outright dismissal of the charges. Nor does the admission of the fruits of the interrogation justify reversal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, because it is impossible to conclude on the face of this record that defense counsel lacked a tactical reason for failing to object at trial. We therefore find no reversible error in defendant’s conviction.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.