P.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Vanesa Michelle Mihajson appeals from her conviction of being an

accessory to murder (Pen. Code,1 § 32.) She contends the trial court erred in (1) denying

her motions to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop because the time and scope

of the detention exceeded the ostensible basis for the stop; and (2) admitting evidence of

her brother‟s statements to the police because they were hearsay, they were testimonial,

and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause and the principles set forth in

People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 (Aranda) and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391

U.S. 123 (Bruton). We find no error, and we affirm.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Before October 12, 2007, defendant shared a condominium on Portola in Palm

Desert with her brother, Sean Mihajson (Sean), and his girlfriend, Katie Weddle. Sean

was not employed, but he obtained money by selling marijuana to friends. Defendant‟s

friend Karen Reyes had seen Shalonda Morris,2 at the condo. Defendant told Reyes more

than once that Sean planned to set up a fake deal to steal money from Morris by

pretending he had drugs to sell her. Defendant told Reyes,…