Walkkein

People v. Walkkein

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 1401·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 383·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 387·93 Daily Journal DAR 4631·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2694
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 1993No. B062314California3,595 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Croskey, J.

Joseph L. Walkkein and Antonio Royal Watson were charged by information with attempted robbery (count 1; Pen. Code, *1404 § 664/211) 1 and burglary (count 2; §459). During their court trial, over Watson’s objection, extrajudicial statements by Walkkein which incriminated Watson were admitted into evidence as to Walkkein only.

Watson’s appeal raises the issue of whether the rule of People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 353 , 407 P.2d 265 ], prohibiting the admission into evidence of extrajudicial statements by one codefendant, which incriminate another codefendant, applies where the defendants waive trial by jury and are tried by the court. This issue has not been explicitly resolved in any published California case. However, well-established federal authorities have concluded the United States Constitution does not require application of the rule in a court trial. (Richardson v. Marsh (1987) 481 U.S. 200, 207-208 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 176, 184-185 , 107 S.Ct. 1702 ]; Rogers v. McMackin (6th Cir. 1989) 884 F.2d 252, 256-257 , cert. denied in Rogers v. Hills (1990) ( 493 U.S. 1061 [ 107 L.Ed.2d 960 , 110 S.Ct. 877 ].) We therefore will conclude that article I,…

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.