State v. Ayala — dissenting

Summary

Justice D’Auria, joined by Justices Palmer and Ecker, dissented from the judgment affirming the convictions. The dissent concluded that the admission of the gang leader’s hearsay account was erroneous because the record did not provide a reasonable basis to find that the statement was made in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy, and that the error was harmful in a close case dependent on unreliable, largely uncorroborated hearsay. The dissent did not reach the separate challenge concerning the victim’s statements expressing fear of the gang. The dissenting justices would have reversed and remanded for a new trial.