People v. Carriedo CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Transcript of the body camera footage Carriedo contends the trial court erred when it admitted Officer Smith’s testimony recounting the statement he made about Viviana stealing Mendoza’s car without waiting for the prosecutor to provide a transcript of the officer’s body camera footage. But Carriedo did not renew his objection after the section 402 hearing. His contention is forfeited. (People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 170.)

3 It also fails on the merits. Hearsay is inadmissible “[e]xcept as provided by law.” (§ 1200, subd. (b).) Subdivision (b) of section 1240 contains one such exception: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement [¶] . . . [¶] [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement.” We review the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. (People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 236.) There was no abuse of discretion here. “The word ‘spontaneous’ as used in . . . section 1240 means ‘actions undertaken without deliberation or reflection.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 811.) Officer Smith testified that Carriedo volunteered that a woman named Viviana had…