opportunity to correct potential error in California

2025(People v. Hernandez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 [defendant could not argue on appeal that statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability because “he failed to object to the statements below on this ground”; (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415 , 481 “[f]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance. [Citation.]”; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testim

2025We agree with the Attorney General that defendant has forfeited this hearsay claim on appeal. “‘[F]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure 9 We address defendant’s Sixth Amendment challenge in the next section. 14 deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 ; People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 472 ; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testimony by fai

2026We cannot conclude on this record that the court was in any way “ ‘deprive[d] … of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’ ” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 ; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 481 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912 , 919–920.) We therefore address the merits of defendant’s claim.

2025The “failure to press for a ruling waives the issue on appeal.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 984 ; see People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82 , 142- 143 [“Thus, because defendant failed to press the trial court for a ruling on [the unavailability of a witness], he may not raise the issue on appeal.”]; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 481 [“Failure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.”].) 8.

2026We cannot conclude on this record that the court was in any way “ ‘deprive[d] … of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’ ” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 ; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 481 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912 , 919–920.) We therefore address the merits of defendant’s claim.

2025The “failure to press for a ruling waives the issue on appeal.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 984 ; see People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82 , 142- 143 [“Thus, because defendant failed to press the trial court for a ruling on [the unavailability of a witness], he may not raise the issue on appeal.”]; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 481 [“Failure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.”].) 8.

2025We agree with the Attorney General that defendant has forfeited this hearsay claim on appeal. “‘[F]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure 9 We address defendant’s Sixth Amendment challenge in the next section. 14 deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 ; People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 472 ; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testimony by fai

2021He has, therefore, forfeited any contention that the failure to admit evidence of Matthew’s culpability was attributable to an erroneous ruling from the court. “ ‘[F]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’ ” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 ; see People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testimony by failing “to press for” a ruling “until he obtained on

2025We agree with the Attorney General that defendant has forfeited this hearsay claim on appeal. “‘[F]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure 9 We address defendant’s Sixth Amendment challenge in the next section. 14 deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 ; People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 472 ; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testimony by fai

2024(See People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 450 [“Defendant’s failure to press the court for a ruling ‘depriv[ed] the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error’ ”].) “As a general rule, only ‘claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal.’ ” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 .) Because Simpson failed to raise a timely and specific objection on this ground, he cannot raise the issue on appeal.

2024(People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 416 [“defendant’s failure to make a timely and specific objection on the ground he now raises forfeits the claim on appeal”]; see also Evid.

2016(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 59 ; see People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 462 .) Third, if the trial court erred by admitting the statements, we determine whether the resulting error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman).

2015He failed to do so, thus depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error.’ ” (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171 ; People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 133 (Holloway) [“A tentative pretrial evidentiary ruling, made without fully knowing what the trial evidence would show, will not preserve the issue for appeal if the appellant could have, but did not, renew the objection or offer of proof and press for a final ruling in the changed context of the trial evidence itself.”]; cf. People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 513 [“Though it expressed a tentative opin

2014He failed to do so, thus depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error.”]; cf. People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 133 [“A tentative pretrial evidentiary ruling, made without fully knowing what the trial evidence would show, will not preserve the issue for appeal if the appellant could have, but did not, renew the objection or offer of proof and press for a final ruling in the changed context of the trial evidence itself. [Citations.] “‘“‘Where the court rejects evidence temporarily or withholds a decision as to its admissibility, the party desiring to introduce

2013(Cf. Delaware v. Fensterer (1985) 474 U.S. 15 [ 106 S.Ct. 292 ] (per curiam), 22 [admission of an expert's opinion "did not offend the Confrontation Clause despite his inability to recall the basis for that opinion" because an expert's "inability to recall on the stand the basis for his opinion presents none of the perils from which the Confrontation Clause protects defendants in criminal proceedings" and "the Confrontation Clause is generally satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose these infirmities through cross- examination, thereby calling to the

2013"As [the California Supreme Court has] held, '[f]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance. [Citation.]' (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 481 ; see also People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testimony by failing 'to press for' a ruling 'until he obtained one'].)" (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 .) The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the "Stat

2025(People v. Hernandez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 417, 425 [defendant could not argue on appeal that statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability because “he failed to object to the statements below on this ground”; (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415 , 481 “[f]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance. [Citation.]”; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [defendant forfeited appellate challenge to admission of testim

2022The “ ‘failure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’ ” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 .) 42 County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938 , 945–946 [prior incidents of correctional officer’s misconduct admissible to impeach his claim that he had “developed patience working with” prisoners]; see also People v. Turner (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 397 , 410–411 [defendant’s prior arrest for possessing the same type of

2022The “ ‘failure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance.’ ” (People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 .) 42 County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938 , 945–946 [prior incidents of correctional officer’s misconduct admissible to impeach his claim that he had “developed patience working with” prisoners]; see also People v. Turner (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 397 , 410–411 [defendant’s prior arrest for possessing the same type of

2016(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 59 ; see People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 462 .) Third, if the trial court erred by admitting the statements, we determine whether the resulting error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman).

2016(See People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143 [“‘[f]ailure to press for a ruling on a motion to exclude evidence forfeits appellate review of the claim because such failure deprives the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error in the first instance’”]; People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 411 [“‘“as a general rule, ‘the 6 The settled statement suggests that Vargas withdrew because Taylor’s “wife or girlfriend” told Vargas, who had been retained by Taylor’s family, to let the deputy public defender represent Taylor at trial. 7 One exception is “‘the complete denial of coun

2015He failed to do so, thus depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error.’ ” (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171 ; People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 133 (Holloway) [“A tentative pretrial evidentiary ruling, made without fully knowing what the trial evidence would show, will not preserve the issue for appeal if the appellant could have, but did not, renew the objection or offer of proof and press for a final ruling in the changed context of the trial evidence itself.”]; cf. People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 513 [“Though it expressed a tentative opin

2006Defendant’s failure to press the court for a ruling “deprive[edj the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error.” (People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 720 , 807 P.2d 949 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) Even without the court having held a hearing on this issue, it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that defendant be physically restrained during trial. “[A] defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the

2006Defendant’s failure to press the court for a ruling “deprive[edj the trial court of the opportunity to correct potential error.” (People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 195 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 720 , 807 P.2d 949 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn. 1 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) Even without the court having held a hearing on this issue, it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that defendant be physically restrained during trial. “[A] defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the

1997(Cf. Ramos I, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 580.) With respect to cross-examination questions, there is also no record of an objection on specified grounds.