How have the courts dealt with the issue of forfeiture of evidence in a murder case?

It was defendant's confession during interrogation that linked him to the murder. Defendant was a juvenile at the time of the crime and, on appeal, he argues that his confession should have been excluded at trial because the advisement of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) was confusing and therefore inadequate, and he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his rights. He also argues the trial court erred (1) in admitting text messages that were both irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (Evid. Code, 351, 352) and (2) in instructing the jury on a defendant's failure to explain or deny adverse evidence because it found his testimony implausible.² The People raise the issue of forfeiture and also maintain the Miranda warnings given were adequate and defendant's confession was voluntary; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting text message exchanges from the day of the crime; and the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on CALCRIM No. 361 because implausibility is a ground that supports the instruction. Defendant contends to the extent any claims were forfeited by his failure to move to suppress evidence or to object at trial, his trial counsel was ineffective.

Page 3

We reject defendant's challenges and affirm the judgment.