Never Drive a Stolen Vehicle In View of the Owner
Post 4840
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v57z21x-never-drive-a-stolen-vehicle-in-view-of-the-owner.html and at https://youtu.be/Lgp19LcLlQM
Go to my sites at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe & https://zalma.com/blog
Jennifer L. Martin appealed her possession of a stolen vehicle conviction, arguing that the allowed testimony violated the confrontation clause and the trial court erred in denying her hearsay objection during trial. The State concedes that it failed to prove Martin’s criminal history. Martin alleged prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.
In State Of Washington v. Jennifer Lorriane Martin, No. 57915-4-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (July 9, 2024) the Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction.
FACTS
Pierce County Sheriff’s Department dispatched Deputy Carly Cappetto to investigate the report of a stolen vehicle. The vehicle’s owner reported that he spotted the vehicle and followed it to a U-Haul store. Cappetto was nearby and also observed the vehicle pull into the U-Haul store.
Cappetto observed Martin get out of the vehicle and walk over to a U-Haul truck. Cappetto approached the vehicle and confirmed that it was the stolen vehicle by checking the vehicle identification number. Martin was aware of Cappetto’s presence and kept looking over at her.
Cappetto observed Martin get into the U-Haul truck and drive through an alley. Cappetto followed them and waited for backup. The truck stopped at a nearby grocery store and Cappetto observed Martin get out of the truck and go inside the store.
A store employee approached the deputies and told them the individual they were looking for was in the restroom and had been in there the whole time. Cappetto located Martin in the restroom and arrested her. The State charged Martin with unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle.
THE TRIAL
During trial, Cappetto testified to the events that led up to Martin’s arrest. When testifying about looking for Martin inside the grocery store, Cappetto stated that a store employee approached the deputies and said, “the female [they] were looking for was located in the bathroom, and she had been in there ever since she came in.” Defense counsel objected, stating, “I object to her reporting hearsay from the store clerk that we can’t examine.” The trial court overruled the objection.
The jury found Martin guilty of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle.
SENTENCING
At sentencing, the State only summarized Martin’s criminal history without providing evidence. Martin conceded that she had a prior felony conviction for escape but argued that it washed out.
The trial court concluded that the prior felony did not wash out and calculated her offender score as a one. The court imposed a low-end standard range sentence of two months. The court ordered Martin to pay $500 in restitution to the vehicle’s owner for damage to the vehicle.
ANALYSIS
Confrontation Clause
Neither a general objection nor a hearsay objection is enough to apply the Constitutional Right to Confrontation of Witnesses. During trial, Cappetto testified that while looking for Martin inside the store, a store employee approached the deputies. Additionally, Martin raised the issue of confrontation previously in her motion to suppress Wright’s statements and in so doing demonstrated awareness of the issue and ability to specifically raise it.
Hearsay
Martin next contended that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Cappetto to testify to the grocery store clerk’s statement. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is not admissible unless an exception applies. An exception for present sense impressions and the declarant’s availability is immaterial.
A store employee approached the deputies and told them Martin was in the restroom and had been in there since she came in. This statement was made within minutes of the deputies starting their search for Martin and was based on the store employee’s observation of what was happening at the grocery store. The contemporaneous and spontaneous nature of the statement, including the timing, nature, and content, reduces the chance of misrepresentation or fabrication by the witness. Therefore, the statement was a present sense impression and an exception to the hearsay rule.
The court affirmed Martin’s conviction but accept the State’s concession regarding the sentencing error involving proving Martin’s criminal history, and remand for resentencing.
Criminals, like Ms. Martin, have by definition chutzpah or they wouldn’t commit crimes. Ms. Martin caught in the act operating a stolen vehicle when the owner can see her and call in the Sheriff’s office to arrest heR is less than an act of a wise person. She was caught in the act, arrested and then had the unmitigated gall to appeal based on non-existent objections and misstatements of the hearsay doctrine. He sentence was kind and a reasonable person, like Martin, with a criminal conviction history, including escape, should have accepted the sentence and left the court to deal with serious crimes, like insurance fraud.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Like this:
Loading…
Related
About Barry Zalma
An insurance coverage and claims handling author, consultant and expert witness with more than 48 years of practical and court room experience.
