Does the prosecution error regarding the destruction of a key sheet from a photo lineup of alleged carjacks and carjacking victims constitute harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Read, A143253, A146123 (Cal. App. 2016):

Defendant insists this evidence may have sufficed to support a conviction for receiving stolen property, but did not suffice to support his conviction for felony kidnapping and robbery. But, in so arguing, defendant ignores his own admission that, on the day in question, he not only received a ride in the victim's car, he sat in the front seat next to the victim - to wit, the same seat occupied by the person who pistol-whipped the victim. To this record, we hasten to add the fact, already discussed at length above, that the exculpatory value of the missing evidence was, at best, ambiguous. Under these circumstances, we are left to conclude that any error regarding the prosecution's failure to preserve or prevent destruction of the key sheet from the photo lineup must be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Wright, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 591 [concluding that, in light of the remedial procedure used by the trial court to address the prosecution's suppression of evidence, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt].)

Other Questions


How has the prosecution and defense argued that the error in Beeman error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the federal harmless error standard for determining that an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the requirement in criminal cases that constitutional error be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the requirement in criminal cases that constitutional error be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the error in the form used in the on or around verdict form in a motor vehicle accident case constitute a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court error of inadequately warning a defendant of the pitfalls and hazards involved in self-representation constitute harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General's error in admitting evidence of a defendant's inconsistent testimony in the prosecution's case in chief, rather than for impeachment purposes, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.