4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/01/20 - Jan 20, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/01/20

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 19m 1 speaker 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of the oral argument and who are the judges presiding?

Unknown 10:04

Oh. This is for the uh the stream. Switch the shell.

Unknown 10:30

We're good.

Unknown 10:51

Even we're good now. Yeah. Okay, we're doing that.

Nicholas Bronni 14:46

All rise. Court of appeal, fourth appellate district, division three is now accepted.

Eileen Moore 14:52

Good morning, everyone.

Eileen Moore 15:04

I am Justice Eileen Moore. To my right is Justice Thomas Delaney, and to my left is Justice Nathan Scott.

Unknown 15:12

Yeah.

Eileen Moore 15:13

There are three matters on calendar this morning. This panel will preside over the first matter, then we'll have a very brief recess to have a panel change and Another panel will preside over the next two cases. The first case is Soleri versus Suzuki Motor Corporation.

John Taylor 16:07

Good morning, Your Honors. Uh I'm John Taylor from Horvitz and Levy, representing the American or Suzuki Motor Corporation. I'd like to thank this court for its focus letter and I'll devote my time, my a lot of time addressing the six points uh in the focus letter. I'd like to reserve five minutes of time for rebuttal. All right. This court first asked about a trial court's discretion under Evidence Code Section twelve thirty seven. The starting place for the analysis is evidence code three hundred and fifty one, which provides that all evidence is admissible, all relevant evidence is admissible unless it's excluded excluded under some other statutory provision. And under section twelve thirty seven, a trial court has discretion to determine

John Taylor 16:50

only whether the factors listed in that statute have been met. If they are met, the court does not have additional discretion simply to exclude evidence.

Eileen Moore 16:58

What about under uh evidence code section three fifty two?

John Taylor 17:02

Correct, Your Honor, in certain circumstances uh evidence code three fifty two would give the court additional discretion to exclude evidence. That was not a ground that the trial court listed here. Uh nor could it have, uh because the evidence was a single statement that was so highly relevant Uh it did not provide any risk of uh consumption of undue time, confusion of the issues or unfair prejudice. Um in addition, because the trial court didn't rest its ruling on evidence code three fifty two, that can't be the basis for affirming that ruling. The authorities cited in our brief, our reply brief in page thirty four, explain that as to a discretionary ruling Uh it can only be affirmed on the ground on which the court exercised discretion and not some alternative ground that it did not.

John Taylor 17:49

This court's focus letter also asks how the court abuses discretion here and I think it abuses discretion in two ways. First, it said that the foundation had not been laid, presumably that referred to the elements of section or uh section twelve thirty seven. But this court, in its previous decision, already said those elements were met, and in fact, uh Mr uh or Officer Shaheen gave the same testimony he did in the first trial. Uh and so it was an abuse of discretion to find those elements weren't met here. The trial judge also said that the that there was some aspect that wasn't trustworthy, presumably that referred to the statement of Mr. Soulier in the hospital. But that was a party admission within uh

John Taylor 18:32

That was reported by Officer Shaheen and and there's no basis for excluding a party admission on the grounds of trustworthiness. Section twelve twenty The party admission exception of the hearsay rule requires no showing of trustworthiness. And that would that would have been an issue for the jury to decide once the statement was in evidence about how trustworthy it was. The second question this court asked is Did the defendant lay any foundation about Officer Shaheen's training or experience in report writing? Uh First, there's no such foundation required by Evidence Code twelve thirty seven. It its plain language says that uh or does not require that the recording have been made in any official capacity or by anyone with specialized knowledge.

John Taylor 19:15

Uh for example, if a nurse, a friend or relative had been in the hospital room where Mr. Shaheen was talking on the phone or Mr. Soulier was talking on the phone with uh Officer Shaheen. And they had written down that end of the conversation, it would be admissible