People v. Miale CA5

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Martin Ross Miale was charged with two felonies in connection with allegations that he stole several metal objects from the property of Peter Joice located in a “remote” area of Tuolumne County. Defendant testified that he believed the objects were abandoned scrap metal. At an in limine hearing, the prosecutor conveyed defense counsel’s offer of proof that Joice, the property owner, had told members of the community that “anyone could take the [metal] items – or that they could take the items.” The prosecutor moved to exclude “any sort of reference” to those alleged statements because (1) they were irrelevant, and (2) the names of two individuals to whom Joice allegedly made the statements had only been made known to the prosecution on the morning of trial. The trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion and ordered that defense counsel could not ask Joice whether he “made representations [regarding abandonment of the metal] to the community in general, or to any specific individuals .…” We conclude that the trial court erred in preventing defense counsel from asking Joice whether he had told people the metal was abandoned. We further conclude the error was…