Robson raises a similar complaint. He, too, contends the trial court abused its discretion and denied him a fair trial by allowing the prosecution's redaction of the tape and refusing to allow him to introduce exculpatory statements that had been excised.
ed hardy schuhe
In Robson's case, he sought to include statements either he or Wilson made implicating Gordon as the person who shot Richardson, or suggesting that Gordon was acting on his own in shooting Richardson.
The prosecutor argued that the redacted transcripts "tell pretty much the whole picture of what happened and the roles of each one of these three defendants," that they were not misleading, and that they complied with Aranda/Bruton.
Again the court gave careful consideration to the request to introduce more of the statements from the tapes.
The court stated that the tapes revealed that Robson was willing and eager to admit he had pistol-whipped Richardson and that all three defendants were attempting to get their stories straight.
But the court concluded the redactions were not unfair to Robson because it did not believe the jury would be able to discern each individual's involvement in the robbery/murder from the composite tapes, other than the fact they were all at the scene.
We agree with the Attorney General that the statements Robson sought to introduce were not exculpatory and they would not have exonerated him. The prosecution's theory was felony murder.
The felony-murder rule holds those who commit specified felonies strictly responsible for any killing committed by a cofelon during the commission or attempted commission of the felony, whether the killing is intentional, negligent, or accidental. (People v. Cavitt (2004) 33 Cal.4th 187, 197 (Cavitt).) Thus the fact that Gordon was the shooter did not exonerate Robson or Wilson.
Robson argues, however, that he wanted to introduce statements, not only that Gordon was the shooter, but also that Robson and Wilson did not know what Gordon was trying to do when he hopped in the car and Wilson asked the rhetorical question, "Why did he shoot that nigger?"
Robson maintains that those statements demonstrated Gordon was "on a frolic of his own." He believes those statements would have taken him beyond the reach of the felony-murder rule. Not so.
It is true that there must be a nexus between the felony and the killing. Some deaths, therefore, evade the felony murder rule because they are "so far outside the ambit of the plan of the felony and its execution as to be unrelated to them." (Cavitt, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 199.)
But Robson's and Gordon's statements do not demonstrate the kind of attenuation necessary to fall outside the ambit of the rule. They merely suggest that the shooting exceeded their own expectations of what would occur during a robbery. The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that cofelons remain liable for murder even if the killing is unintentional, negligent, or accidental. (Id. at p. 197.)
Ed Hardy Jeans
As a consequence, we find the court did not abuse its discretion or deprive Robson of a fair trial by disallowing evidence that would implicate his codefendant when that very evidence would not exonerate him under the wide-ranging consequences of participating in a robbery that results in death. There was no error.
Tagi: Edhardy-sale
