results test in California

1975He realizes that the results of such a test are not admissible evidence in a court of law (see People v. Jones (1959) [supra], 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ]) [fn. omitted], but he contends that evidence of his willingness to take such a test should be admissible as ‘a badge of innocence.’ We rejected a similar contention in People v. Carter (1957) [supra], 48 Cal.2d 737 [ 312 P.2d 665 ].

1975He realizes that the results of such a test are not admissible evidence in a court of law (see People v. Jones (1959) [supra], 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ]) [fn. omitted], but he contends that evidence of his willingness to take such a test should be admissible as ‘a badge of innocence.’ We rejected a similar contention in People v. Carter (1957) [supra], 48 Cal.2d 737 [ 312 P.2d 665 ].

1998When a trial court is aware, or should be aware, of a possible conflict of interest between a criminal defendant and defense counsel, the court is required to inquire into the circumstances of the possible conflict and take whatever action may be appropriate. {Jones, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1136.) A trial court’s failure to carry out its duty to conduct such an inquiry, or to take action based on the results of its inquiry, denies the defendant the right to due process. {Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271-273 [ 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103-1104 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220 ].) A conviction will be reversed o

1998When a trial court is aware, or should be aware, of a possible conflict of interest between a criminal defendant and defense counsel, the court is required to inquire into the circumstances of the possible conflict and take whatever action may be appropriate. {Jones, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1136.) A trial court’s failure to carry out its duty to conduct such an inquiry, or to take action based on the results of its inquiry, denies the defendant the right to due process. {Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271-273 [ 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103-1104 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220 ].) A conviction will be reversed o

1992To redress the constitutional violation, the results of the test could be excluded. ( People v. Moore (1983) 34 Cal.3d 215, 223-224 [ 193 Cal. Rptr. 404 , 666 P.2d 419 ].) (40) After we decided Hitch , the United States Supreme Court addressed the same due process issue and formulated a different test.

1992To redress the constitutional violation, the results of the test could be excluded. ( People v. Moore (1983) 34 Cal.3d 215, 223-224 [ 193 Cal. Rptr. 404 , 666 P.2d 419 ].) (40) After we decided Hitch , the United States Supreme Court addressed the same due process issue and formulated a different test.

1957(Citing cases.) ” (See also People v. Jerman, 29 Cal.2d 189, 197 [ 173 P.2d 805 ] ; People v. Alexander, 92 Cal.App.2d 230, 235 [ 206 P.2d 657 ].) Appellant contends further that the announced results of the blood test were utilized to convict him (under Count I) and that testimony as to the results of such test amounted only to circumstantial evidence of his intoxication, and that the error of the court in refusing to give the foregoing instruction was therefore aggravated.

1957(Citing cases.) ” (See also People v. Jerman, 29 Cal.2d 189, 197 [ 173 P.2d 805 ] ; People v. Alexander, 92 Cal.App.2d 230, 235 [ 206 P.2d 657 ].) Appellant contends further that the announced results of the blood test were utilized to convict him (under Count I) and that testimony as to the results of such test amounted only to circumstantial evidence of his intoxication, and that the error of the court in refusing to give the foregoing instruction was therefore aggravated.

1957(Citing cases.) ” (See also People v. Jerman, 29 Cal.2d 189, 197 [ 173 P.2d 805 ] ; People v. Alexander, 92 Cal.App.2d 230, 235 [ 206 P.2d 657 ].) Appellant contends further that the announced results of the blood test were utilized to convict him (under Count I) and that testimony as to the results of such test amounted only to circumstantial evidence of his intoxication, and that the error of the court in refusing to give the foregoing instruction was therefore aggravated.

1957(Citing cases.) ” (See also People v. Jerman, 29 Cal.2d 189, 197 [ 173 P.2d 805 ] ; People v. Alexander, 92 Cal.App.2d 230, 235 [ 206 P.2d 657 ].) Appellant contends further that the announced results of the blood test were utilized to convict him (under Count I) and that testimony as to the results of such test amounted only to circumstantial evidence of his intoxication, and that the error of the court in refusing to give the foregoing instruction was therefore aggravated.

1992Relying on People v. Griffin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1011 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 643 , 761 P.2d 103 ], California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 ], and Arizona v. Youngblood (19M) 488 U.S. 51 [102 L.Ed.2d *1180 281, 109 S.Ct. 333 ], the prosecution argues because it could have consumed the entire semen sample, Prince is not denied due process by having to disclose the results of a test to the People.

1992Relying on People v. Griffin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1011 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 643 , 761 P.2d 103 ], California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 ], and Arizona v. Youngblood (19M) 488 U.S. 51 [102 L.Ed.2d *1180 281, 109 S.Ct. 333 ], the prosecution argues because it could have consumed the entire semen sample, Prince is not denied due process by having to disclose the results of a test to the People.

2016(See In re L.S. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1198 [“In order for the court to make a determination whether the notice requirements of the ICWA have been satisfied, it must have sufficient facts, as established by the Agency, about the claims of the parents, the extent of the inquiry, the results of the inquiry, the notice provided any tribes and the responses of the tribes to the notices given.

2016(See In re L.S., supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 1198 [“Given the conflicting and inadequate information on mother’s claim of Indian heritage, the court had a duty either to require the Agency to provide a report with complete and accurate information regarding the results of its inquiry and notice or to have the individual responsible for notice to testify in court regarding the inquiry made, the results of the inquiry, and the results of the notices sent.

2001(Simpson cites People v. Wochnick (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 124, 128 [ 219 P.2d 70 ] [police officer extensively testified about the lie detector test he administered to the defendant and having asked defendant at the conclusion of it whether defendant had any explanation for the responses of the machine; held, despite a limiting instruction that this testimony was admitted only as background to the officer’s accusatory statement and the defendant’s answer, “the evidence of the partial results of the lie detector test with respect to defendant’s reaction upon being shown the murder weapon was indel

2001(Simpson cites People v. Wochnick (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 124, 128 [ 219 P.2d 70 ] [police officer extensively testified about the lie detector test he administered to the defendant and having asked defendant at the conclusion of it whether defendant had any explanation for the responses of the machine; held, despite a limiting instruction that this testimony was admitted only as background to the officer’s accusatory statement and the defendant’s answer, “the evidence of the partial results of the lie detector test with respect to defendant’s reaction upon being shown the murder weapon was indel

2001(Simpson cites People v. Wochnick (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 124, 128 [ 219 P.2d 70 ] [police officer extensively testified about the lie detector test he administered to the defendant and having asked defendant at the conclusion of it whether defendant had any explanation for the responses of the machine; held, despite a limiting instruction that this testimony was admitted only as background to the officer’s accusatory statement and the defendant’s answer, “the evidence of the partial results of the lie detector test with respect to defendant’s reaction upon being shown the murder weapon was indel

2001(Simpson cites People v. Wochnick (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 124, 128 [ 219 P.2d 70 ] [police officer extensively testified about the lie detector test he administered to the defendant and having asked defendant at the conclusion of it whether defendant had any explanation for the responses of the machine; held, despite a limiting instruction that this testimony was admitted only as background to the officer’s accusatory statement and the defendant’s answer, “the evidence of the partial results of the lie detector test with respect to defendant’s reaction upon being shown the murder weapon was indel

1994“Petitioner’s testimonial capacities were in no way implicated; indeed, his participation, except as donor, was irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone.” (Id. at p. 765 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 916 ], fn. omitted.) Later the same term the court equated testimonial evidence with the disclosure of “knowledge [defendant] might have.” (United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 222 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 ].) More recently, the court held “. . . in order to be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly,

1994“Petitioner’s testimonial capacities were in no way implicated; indeed, his participation, except as donor, was irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone.” (Id. at p. 765 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 916 ], fn. omitted.) Later the same term the court equated testimonial evidence with the disclosure of “knowledge [defendant] might have.” (United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 222 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 ].) More recently, the court held “. . . in order to be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly,

2018Two days after defendant's conviction, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 , 686, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 , 374 P.3d 320 ( Sanchez ), which held an expert cannot "relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception." Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because Rienhardt's testimony relayed case-specific hearsay to the jury which was improper under Sanchez . 6 2.

2018Two days after defendant's conviction, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 , 686, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 , 374 P.3d 320 ( Sanchez ), which held an expert cannot "relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception." Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because Rienhardt's testimony relayed case-specific hearsay to the jury which was improper under Sanchez . 6 2.

2001(People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 194 [jury is presumed to have followed instructions]; People v. Paul, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 32, 40 [the testimony concerning the actual results of the lie detector test, although stricken, was favorable to the defendant, that he had passed it].) The cases *604 cited by Simpson involved far more extensive or egregious emphasis on the results of the test.

1979The California court’s unwillingness to use polygraph tests is further shown in People v. Paul, 78 Cal.App.3d 32 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 431 ], at page 39, where it was held: “It is well settled that neither the willingness nor the unwillingness of a witness to take a polygraph test is admissible. [Citations.] Likewise, the results of such a test are also inadmissible absent a stipulation by both parties. [Citation.]” *84 The question of whether polygraph evidence can be used on a motion to reconsider under section 778 is a question of first impression in this state.

1998When a trial court is aware, or should be aware, of a possible conflict of interest between a criminal defendant and defense counsel, the court is required to inquire into the circumstances of the possible conflict and take whatever action may be appropriate. {Jones, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1136.) A trial court’s failure to carry out its duty to conduct such an inquiry, or to take action based on the results of its inquiry, denies the defendant the right to due process. {Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271-273 [ 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103-1104 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220 ].) A conviction will be reversed o

1998When a trial court is aware, or should be aware, of a possible conflict of interest between a criminal defendant and defense counsel, the court is required to inquire into the circumstances of the possible conflict and take whatever action may be appropriate. {Jones, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1136.) A trial court’s failure to carry out its duty to conduct such an inquiry, or to take action based on the results of its inquiry, denies the defendant the right to due process. {Wood v. Georgia (1981) 450 U.S. 261, 271-273 [ 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1103-1104 , 67 L.Ed.2d 220 ].) A conviction will be reversed o

1973The courts have consistently held that whether the test is a polygraph test, or a sodium amytal or sodium pentothal test, the results are not such as to be admissible for or against the defendant because of a lack of scientific certainty about the results. ( People v. Aragon, 154 Cal. App.2d 646 , 658 ...; People v. Wochnick, 98 Cal. App.2d 124 , 127 ...; People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737 , 752 ...; People v. Parrella, 158 Cal. App.2d 140 , 147 ...; People v. Porter, 99 Cal. App.2d 506 , 510 ...; People v. McNichol, 100 Cal. App.2d 554 , 558 ...; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614 , 626 ...; Witkin

1958Beyond question, the results of lie detector tests are inadmissible in evidence on the trial of a criminal case, *177 whether offered by the prosecution (People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]; People v. Wochnick, 98 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 217 P.2d 70 ]), or the defense (People v. Porter, 99 Cal.App.2d 506, 510 [ 222 P.2d 151 ]).

1973(Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382]; People v. King, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d 437, 443 ; People v. Williams, 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858 [ 331 P.2d 251 ].) “The determination of whether a scientific test has received general acceptance by recognized experts in the field so as to- justify the admission of expert testimony based on the results of the test is primarily a question of fact for the trial court. [Citations.] “The trial court enjoys considerable latitude in determining the qualifi *785 cation of an expert.

1973(Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382]; People v. King, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d 437, 443 ; People v. Williams, 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858 [ 331 P.2d 251 ].) “The determination of whether a scientific test has received general acceptance by recognized experts in the field so as to- justify the admission of expert testimony based on the results of the test is primarily a question of fact for the trial court. [Citations.] “The trial court enjoys considerable latitude in determining the qualifi *785 cation of an expert.

1959(See Breithaupt v. Alram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448, 451-452, fn. 3 ].) Nor should it be ignored that a test of this kind may serve to exonerate, as well as to convict.” (People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766 at 772 [ 312 P.2d 690 ].) In the Breithaupt ease, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that the taking of a blood sample, without the consent of the defendant, for the purpose of ascertaining the alcoholic content in the blood, and the admission of the results of the test into evidence, did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1959(See Breithaupt v. Alram, 352 U.S. 432 [ 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448, 451-452, fn. 3 ].) Nor should it be ignored that a test of this kind may serve to exonerate, as well as to convict.” (People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766 at 772 [ 312 P.2d 690 ].) In the Breithaupt ease, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that the taking of a blood sample, without the consent of the defendant, for the purpose of ascertaining the alcoholic content in the blood, and the admission of the results of the test into evidence, did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

2023Defense counsel may also have determined objecting to Viray’s testimony about the results of the test performed by Chao would have been futile. “ ‘Generally speaking, a declarant’s hearsay statement is testimonial if made “with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” ’ ” (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1196-1197.) Applying this test, several California courts have concluded reports containing DNA analysis like Chao’s are not primarily testimonial because: “(1) they were generated by a lab technician pursuant to standardized procedures; (2) even t