Drumgo and Harris are discussed at 407-08
How later courts described this case
- Drumgo and Harris are discussed at 407-08
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Ford, 30 Cal. 3d 209 (1981)
Upholding the use findings, this court distinguished Gould on two grounds. (26 Cal.3d at p. 364.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I dissent. For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in In re Johnny G. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 543, 549 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 180 , 601 P.2d 196 ], I would hold that the admission into evidence of the prior inconsistent statements of the witness Gregory Angel as substantive proof of guilt denied defendant his right of confrontation under article I, section 15, of the California Constitution.
As the majority concede (ante, p. 362), those statements constituted “the only direct evidence” to support the findings that defendant personally used the firearm involved in the three counts of assault in this case; accordingly, as to those findings the error was manifestly prejudicial. It was also prejudicial as to the verdicts finding defendant guilty of assault. Although without the prior inconsistent statements the evidence may be technically sufficient to sustain the verdicts because the jury could have found defendant to be an aider and abettor (ibid.), it is far more likely that the jury in fact gave great weight to those statements and found defendant to be the actual perpetrator of the crimes. In such circumstances it is probable that a judgment more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error. (People v. *367 Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) The error thus resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and the judgment should be reversed. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
Bird, C. J., and Newman, J., concurred.