People v. Bingham
Annotate this Case
Bingham was charged with infliction of corporal injury on a romantic partner (Pen. Code 273.5(a)). The victim did not testify at trial, but her 911 call was admitted into evidence. Bingham argued that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding the victim’s prior convictions and inconsistent statements made after her 911 call, which Bingham offered for impeachment. He also argued that his case should be remanded for resentencing based on recent changes in the law.
The court of appeal affirmed and remanded. While the trial court erred in excluding the impeachment evidence, the error was harmless. Under Evidence Code section 1202, when a hearsay statement by a declarant who is not a witness is admitted into evidence by the prosecution, an inconsistent hearsay statement by the same person offered by the defense is admissible to attack the declarant’s credibility. However, even if the victim’s statements recanting what she said in the 911 call and her prior convictions were admitted, it is not reasonably probable that Bingham would have obtained a more favorable outcome, considering all the evidence. The court remanded for resentencing under amended Penal Code section 1170(b), which limits the court’s ability to impose an upper-term sentence; the amended law applies retroactively to Bingham’s case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.