Does the rule of inadmissibility apply to any statements made during the course of a plea bargaining negotiations, such as "admissions of guilty and offers to plead guilty"?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Crow, 28 Cal.App.4th 440, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 (Cal. App. 1994):

While section 1192.4 and Evidence Code section 1153 do not expressly extend that rule of inadmissibility to any statements made during plea negotiations other than pleas of guilty and offers to plead guilty, we did so in People v. Tanner (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 345, 119 Cal.Rptr. 407. There, a criminal defendant had written letters to the district attorney and to the deputy district attorney in charge of the defendant's case, in which he conceded that he was guilty of some involvement in the crime, but contended that his culpability was less than that of certain codefendants, and asked the prosecution to reconsider its position on a proposed plea bargain. Over the defendant's objection, the trial court allowed the People to introduce the letters as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief. (Id., at pp. 348 & 353, 119 Cal.Rptr. 407.)

On appeal, this court reversed the judgment. Because public policy favors settlements, and the chances of achieving settlements are the greatest when the defense is candid with the prosecution, we construed the rule of section 1192.4 and Evidence Code section 1153 to extend to "admissions made in the course of bona fide plea bargaining negotiations." (Tanner, at pp. 351-352, 119 Cal.Rptr. 407.) Moreover, the rule of inadmissibility applies, not merely to admissions of guilt, but also to "any incidental statements made in the course of plea negotiations...." (Id., at p. 350, 119 Cal.Rptr. 407.) That construction promotes candor, because "[t]he accused and defense counsel are assured that anything said will not be used against them if the negotiations are unsuccessful." (People v. Magana (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1377, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 59.)

Other Questions


Does a waiver of the terms of a plea bargain apply to a defendant who has pleaded guilty to a number of counts dismissed in accordance with the plea bargain? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant has adopted a statement as his own as an adoptive admission, is that statement admissible under the hearsay rule? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where a defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to communicate to him that a plea bargain offer under which he would have been permitted to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of the Court of Appeal's recent finding that a defendant who has pleaded guilty to a charge of perverting the course of justice in a sexual assault case has been found guilty of a similar charge in a similar case? (California, United States of America)
Does an offer of lenient treatment in exchange for making a statement render the statement involuntary and inadmissible? (California, United States of America)
When will a court order a certificate of probable cause not to apply for a concurrent sentence for a defendant who has pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to pervert the course of justice? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant plead guilty on appeal for the purposes of pleading guilty to assault? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity have to plead not guilty to the same charge under section 1016 of the California Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
In deciding to plead guilty in a criminal case, has there ever been a finding that a defendant was not fully capable of rationally weighing the pros and cons of forgoing a trial and pleading guilty? (California, United States of America)
What is the probability that a defendant would not have pleaded guilty and insisted on a trial rather than plead guilty? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.