People v. Mathis CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 2016F068443California23,576 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

introduction of a hearsay statement by the only witness to the killing. Mathis sought to offer, as a statement against penal interest, a declaration made by his ex-girlfriend, Chasidy Wilhite, to her on-and-off lover, Jose Pineda. Wilhite told Pineda that she set up the killing of Torres and actively assisted in its commission. The court excluded Pineda’s proffered testimony because it found the declaration was not trustworthy and Pineda lacked credibility. This was prejudicial error and an abuse of discretion because the court did not apply the proper legal principles in evaluating the declaration’s trustworthiness. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

Mathis was charged by an information with the first degree murder of Ruben Torres. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) The information alleged that Mathis had served three prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The jury found Mathis guilty of first degree murder. Thereafter, the prosecution dismissed the three prior prison term allegations. Mathis was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in state prison. Factual Summary During police…

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.