People v. Arredondo
E064206A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Jason Arredondo, charged and convicted of multiple sex crimes against four girls (three stepdaughters and a friend), was sentenced to an aggregate term of 33 years plus 275 years to life; appealed several trial rulings.
- At trial three female victims (F.R., age 18; A.J.R., age 14; A.M.R., age 13) testified; the court had a computer monitor on the witness stand that was raised several inches so those witnesses would not have to look at defendant while testifying.
- The monitor remained elevated during testimony of F.R., A.J.R., and A.M.R.; defense counsel objected to the monitor for F.R. on Confrontation Clause grounds but did not object when it remained raised for the younger girls.
- The trial court found (expressly or implicitly) the elevation was necessary because F.R. was visibly upset and temporarily unable to proceed while facing defendant; it characterized the alteration as a small, minimally intrusive accommodation.
- The court convicted on numerous counts (lewd acts, oral copulation, sexual penetration) and admitted evidence including prior bad-act testimony and a prior 1999 conviction; the parties agreed and the appellate court ordered resentencing on three counts due to an error in applying consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether raising the witness-stand monitor (blocking mutual view) violated the Sixth Amendment face-to-face confrontation right for F.R. | State: the accommodation was necessary to protect the witness from severe emotional trauma and reliability was preserved (oath, cross-exam, jury could observe demeanor). | Arredondo: full blockage of view was a Coy-type physical barrier that violated confrontation; F.R. was an adult so Craig exception shouldn't apply or was not shown. | Court: No violation as to F.R.; substantial evidence supports case-specific necessity and testimonial reliability; accommodation was minimal and permissible on these facts. |
| Whether defendant forfeited or counsel was ineffective for not objecting when monitor remained raised for A.J.R. and A.M.R. | State: defense failed to preserve the claim by not objecting; strategy likely informed decision not to object. | Arredondo: prior objection to F.R. should have preserved/allows challenge; counsel ineffective for failing to object later. | Court: Claim forfeited for A.J.R. and A.M.R.; no ineffective assistance shown—tactical reasons supported silence. |
| Whether prosecutor could impeach defense character witnesses (C.H., Mrs. A.) by asking about defendant’s prior §288 conviction | State: impeachment by cross-examining character witnesses about knowledge of the prior conviction was proper (not admission of conviction as substantive evidence). | Arredondo: use of prior conviction was improper propensity evidence/rebuttal character evidence under Evid. Code §§1101/1102 and should have been excluded. | Court: Permitted as proper impeachment of defense character witnesses; alternatively any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence. |
| Whether trial court erred in excusing a juror who reported food poisoning | State: excusal was justified by juror illness and trial scheduling; alternates available. | Arredondo: court should have inquired further about expected duration; excusal premature. | Court: No abuse of discretion; good cause shown and demonstrable-reality standard satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (screen blocking witness’s view of defendant is an "obvious or damaging" face-to-face confrontation violation absent individualized findings)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (Confrontation Clause exception: case-specific finding of necessity may allow alternative procedure for child witnesses if reliability is preserved)
- People v. Gonzales, 54 Cal.4th 1234 (2012) (upholding alternative seating that limited face-to-face contact where record justified necessity; Craig principles applied)
- People v. Sharp, 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (1994) (allowing a child witness to testify facing away or toward prosecutor when record shows distress; minimal intrusion on confrontation rights)
- People v. Murphy, 107 Cal.App.4th 1150 (2003) (physical one-way screen for an adult witness was reversed where court failed to make case-specific findings and hold evidentiary hearing on necessity)
- People v. Williams, 102 Cal.App.4th 995 (2002) (upheld videotaped/testimony-in-absence procedure for an adult with expert evidence showing severe trauma; extension of Craig principles in extraordinary circumstances)