People v. Bullock CA3

DISCUSSION

I The Trial Court Properly Admitted And Instructed On Evidence Of Morales’s Prior Inconsistent Statement Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting Morales’s prior inconsistent statement and then erred in instructing the jury about the statement. Specifically, Deputy Glenwinkel testified that Morales told her, “[defendant] became irate when he found out Morales had called the cops and threatened to come back and get ‘em all.” Defendant argues that his statement he would “come back and get ‘em all” (a) was hearsay and not admissible as a prior inconsistent statement; (b) was testimonial and admitted in violation of his due process right to confront the witnesses against him, citing Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 [158 L.Ed.2d 177]; and (c) should not have been admitted for the truth of the matter stated and therefore the court erred in instructing the jury.

3 As we explain: (a) this double hearsay statement was admissible as an admission of a party and a prior inconsistent statement; (b) defendant failed to preserve his confrontation clause argument because he did not object on this ground in the trial court, but his trial counsel was not…