People v. Starks CA2/1

DISCUSSION

A. Sixth Amendment Violation Appellant argues his Sixth Amendment rights were violated in that he was prevented from confronting his accuser. He argues Hargrave, as his accuser, should have been required to testify in court. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that “[in] all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” Appellant’s argument is without merit because Hargrave was not his accuser, and her personal testimony was not required to prove his criminal conduct. The arresting officers testified to recovering the gun that appellant admitted to possessing, as well as to statements in which he admitted his physical contact with the victim. This testimony from the arresting officers regarding appellant’s admissions was sufficient to convict. (See, e.g., Davis v. Washington (2006) 547 U.S. 813 [testimony of two police officers, as the state’s only witnesses, in addition to a 9-1-1 recording as evidence, sufficed in convicting defendant].) B. Hearsay In arguing that Hargrave’s absence violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, appellant also effectively…