P. v. Mihajson
Defendant Vanesa Michelle Mihajson appeals from her conviction of being an accessory to murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 32.) She contends the trial court erred in (1) denying her motions to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop because the time and scope of the detention exceeded the ostensible basis for the stop; and (2) admitting evidence of her brother’s statements to the police because they were hearsay, they were testimonial, and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause and the principles set forth in People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 (Aranda) and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 (Bruton). We find no error, and we affirm.
Comments on P. v. Mihajson