California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Criminal Law
 

CRIMINAL LAW-SENTENCING
Criminal Law Case Summaries

■ People v Mays C057099

 In this case, defendant Darious Antoine Mays was being questioned about his involvement in a homicide.  Defendant asked to take a polygraph test.  The police administered a fake polygraph test during which defendant denied any involvement in the crime.  The police showed defendant a fake graph from the fake polygraph machine and told defendant he had not been telling the truth.  Defendant then admitted he had been present at the scene of the crime.  We hold that defendant’s admissions were not involuntary so as to preclude their admission in evidence.

     Defendant Mays appeals following his conviction of first-degree murder with a lying-in-wait special circumstance and personal firearm discharge enhancement.  (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(15), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.)  Defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) denying his Batson-Wheeler[1] motion when the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge on a Black prospective juror, (2) admitting into evidence defendant’s statements taken by police in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694], (3) admitting into evidence defendant’s statements allegedly coerced by police faking a polygraph test, (4) allowing a witness to testify by conditional examination videotaped outside of the presence of the jury and the public and then played in open court, and (5) denying defendant’s motion for new trial.  Defendant also challenges a parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) and a clerical error in the abstract of judgment showing the case as a three strikes case. 

     In the unpublished portions of the opinion, we explain why we reject defendant’s Batson-Wheeler and Miranda claims and why we shall order modification of the abstract of judgment (1) to strike the parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) and (2) to delete the reference to the three strikes law.  In the published portion of the opinion, we reject defendant’s contentions (3) and (4).  Thus, although we will modify the abstract of judgment, we will otherwise affirm the judgment.

■ FootNote
[1] Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258.

■ HELD:

Conviction of first-degree murder is affirmed where: 1) defendant's incriminating statements to police during a mock polygraph test were not involuntary so as to preclude their admission in evidence; and 2) no reversible error occurred regarding the conditional examination of the witness, as it was not statutorily prohibited and the court did not err in finding the witness unavailable and using the conditional examination in lieu of live testimony.
People v. Mays -C057099-5/8/09 CA3
People v. Mays -C057099-5/8/09 CA3-PDF 

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory