California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mendoza, B281584 (Cal. App. 2018):
Defendant acknowledges that he did not object to the evidence on confrontation grounds at trial, and that his only objection was that the admission of four predicate offenses would be more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. Defendant has thus forfeited review of the issue except to the extent "that the erroneous overruling of the objection actually made also had the consequence of violating his federal confrontation rights. [Citation.]" (People v. Loy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 46, 66, fn. omitted; see also People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216.) However, as defendant does not claim that the trial
Page 18
court erroneously overruled his objection under Evidence Code section 352, there can be no additional consequence to review.6
Defendant contends that he has not forfeited the issue because any failure of his trial counsel to object to the evidence on this ground constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We disagree, as the failure to make an unmeritorious objection is not ineffective assistance (People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 463), and as we explain, there is no merit to defendant's assertion that admission of the evidence violated the confrontation clause.
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.