PILSTER

People v. PILSTER

Caution
138 Cal. App. 4th 1395·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 591·2006 Daily Journal DAR 5119·42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3555
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 27, 2006G035130California3,975 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aronson, J.

A jury convicted James Jay Pilster of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) At trial, the prosecutor used defendant’s prearrest statements to an investigating officer to impeach his testimonial account of the alleged crime. Because the interviewing officer failed to provide him with Miranda warnings even though he was handcuffed during the interview, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury that they could consider his prearrest statements only on the issue of his credibility, per CALJIC No. 2.13.1. We agree the instruction should have been given, but conclude the error was harmless. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

I

Facts

Stephen Hurley entered the patio area of a Laguna Beach brewery around 1:00 a.m. on the morning of June 22, 2003. As Hurley moved through the patio, defendant bumped into him, spinning him around. Defendant took a step toward Hurley and said “what’s up.” Hurley felt defendant was “definitely starting some trouble.” The shorter of defendant’s companions, Carlos Font, approached with his hand out. When Hurley brushed the hand away, the larger of defendant’s two companions,…

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.