People v. Anzalone
56 Cal. 4th 545
Cal.2013Background
- Defendant Anzalone was charged with criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism, and brandishing a weapon stemming from two incidents on Feb. 22, 2009.
- The jury returned verdicts after brief deliberations and without any polling of jurors, with foreperson identifying the verdicts as recorded.
- The trial court declared the verdicts and later the clerk read them aloud; no party requested polling under §§ 1163-1164 and Penal Code § 1149.
- The Court of Appeal held that the court’s failure to perform the required polling under § 1149 violated the state constitutional right to a unanimous verdict and was structural error.
- The California Supreme Court reversed, finding the error to be procedural, subject to harmless error review, and not per se reversible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1149 failure is structural error | People argued error is structural because it affects unanimity protection. | Anzalone argued it should be structural due to potential undermining of verdict validity. | Not structural; harmless-error analysis applies. |
| Whether forfeiture applies for failing to object | People contends forfeiture bars appellate review of the claimed defect. | Anzalone contends forfeiture should not bar review because the issue concerns a fundamental right. | Forfeiture applies, but merits reviewed notwithstanding. |
| Whether the lack of polling affected unanimity | People asserts jury unanimity was preserved; no juror dissented when verdict read. | Anzalone asserts potential risk to unanimity due to incomplete polling. | Record shows unanimity; any procedural defect was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 247 (Cal. 2009) (forfeiture rule on incomplete polling of jury)
- People v. Wright, 52 Cal.3d 367 (Cal. 1990) (forfeiture due to failure to object)
- Lessard, 58 Cal.2d 447 (Cal. 1962) (objection requirement premised on testing for error)
- People v. Braxton, 34 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2004) (structural-error framework; harmless-error analysis preserved)
- People v. Nichols, 62 Cal. 518 (Cal. 1881) (palpable irregularity in verdict recording not prejudice)
- Mil, 53 Cal.4th 400 (Cal. 2012) (trial error generally; some errors subject to harmless error review)
- Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (Cal. 2010) (distinction between structural and trial error)
- James F., 42 Cal.4th 901 (Cal. 2007) (structural-error discussion context)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 503 U.S. 279 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (framework for harmless-error vs. structural errors)