People v. Arevalo-Iraheta
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Felix Antonio Arevalo-Iraheta was convicted on counts 6–10 of lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 14; counts 1–5 for aggravated sexual assault were deadlocked and later dismissed.
- The five counts were added midtrial by an amendment to the information seeking to include counts 6–10.
- The victim was 13 turning 14 in 2008; most acts occurred between April and August 2008, typically around 5:30 p.m., in the same bedroom while her mother was at work.
- Defendant admitted in police interview to sex with the victim; defense contended the victim initiated encounters; trial testimony included multiple versions of events.
- The court allowed the amendment under section 1009; the case discusses Peyton, Winters, and Gray to analyze notice and prejudice, and the court ultimately found no prejudice.
- The court’s handling of the amendment, jury instructions, and later proceedings were reviewed for potential errors but affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment of information midtrial | People contends amendment was proper notice and not prejudicial. | Arevalo-Iraheta argues amendment prejudiced defense by ambushing with new charges. | Amendment upheld; not prejudicial under the circumstances. |
| Judicial misconduct on 1118.1 ruling in presence of jury | No reversible prejudice from brief, in-court discussion about the motion. | Ruling in front of jury improperly conveyed opinion on guilt. | No reversible prejudice; error deemed harmless. |
| Unanimity instruction for multiple acts in Counts 6–10 | Unanimity not required because acts were indistinguishable and time frame clear. | Unanimity instruction required to ensure jury unanimity on specific acts. | Omission not reversible error; no reasonable basis to distinguish among acts in this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Graff, 170 Cal.App.4th 345 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (amendment timing and prejudice standard)
- Winters, 221 Cal.App.3d 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (amendment of information and notice)
- Peyton, 176 Cal.App.4th 642 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (lesser included offenses and notice after preliminary hearing)
- Gray v. Raines, 662 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1981) (federal due process concerns with non-charged offenses)
- Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (standard for lesser included offenses and unanimity framework)
- Fields, 13 Cal.4th 289 (Cal. 1996) (duty to instruct on greater/lesser offenses and unanimity implications)
- Moran, 33 Cal.App.3d 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (general principles of trial proceedings and evidentiary relevance)
- Russo, 25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) (constitutional requirement of jury unanimity in verdicts)
- Deletto, 147 Cal.App.3d 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (unanimity and lesser offense convictions)
- Matute, 103 Cal.App.4th 1437 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (ambit of unanimity instruction and indistinguishable acts)