Is confrontation clause violation involving unconfronted, incriminating statements of an accomplice harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Penunuri, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 324, 418 P.3d 263, 5 Cal.5th 126 (Cal. 2018):
A confrontation clause violation involving the unconfronted, incriminating statements of an accomplice is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only " 'if the properly admitted evidence is overwhelming and the incriminating extrajudicial statement is merely cumulative of other direct evidence.' " ( People v. Burney , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 232, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 348, 212 P.3d 639.) The majority does not dispute that unconfronted, incriminating statements of an accomplice were improperly admitted here. Nor have the People shown that the properly admitted
[5 Cal.5th 183]
evidence
[418 P.3d 307]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
