Filed 8/24/21 P. v .Anguiano CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, B304946 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA147230) v. DARIO ANGUIANO, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Cole-Hall, Judge. Reversed. Aurora Elizabeth Bewicke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph P. Lee and Jaime L. Fuster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________ A jury convicted Dario Anguiano of kidnapping, felony corporal injury, misdemeanor contempt of court and misdemeanor dissuasion of a witness. The trial court sentenced him to a term of five years in state prison. The charges primarily arose out of a November 2017 altercation between Anguiano and his former paramour, Yolanda V., with whom he shared a child. The incident resulted in questionable injuries and was initially filed as a misdemeanor. In March 2018, however, Yolanda contacted detectives and told them that Anguiano, an electrician who had no prior record or reported incidences of domestic violence, had threatened her father in Mexico, claiming he was part of a drug cartel that could carry out this threat. Based on the drug cartel references, Anguiano was re- arrested, and a six-count information was filed against him, now with several felony counts arising out of the original November 2017 incident. At trial, the threat charge that prompted Anguiano’s re-arrest was dismissed for lack of evidence. Thereafter, the jury returned a mixed verdict. On appeal, Anguiano raises various claims of error, including the exclusion of two areas of significant impeachment evidence: (1) that Yolanda, who began working with a victim’s advocacy group in January or February of 2018, became aware of a special visa (and path to citizenship) available to immigrant victims of serious offenses who cooperate with law enforcement, and may have changed her testimony accordingly; and (2) that shortly after the November 2017 incident, and prior to her threat allegations, Yolanda made several recorded messages in which she sought out meetings with Anguiano and stated she would drop the charges in exchange for financial support. 2 We hold that the trial court erred by unduly narrowing the allowable cross-examination of Yolanda, whose testimony was crucial to the prosecution’s case and who possessed a significant motive to fabricate and/or embellish her testimony. Yolanda’s direct testimony clearly placed her immigration status in issue, which reduced any possible prejudice from allowing cross- examination on that topic. Further, with no clearly visible injuries, witness credibility was paramount, making cross- examination especially …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals