47 Cal.App.5th 153
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendants were convicted for a 2007 Golden West Casino robbery and a later 2008 conspiracy; convictions were reinstated after appellate proceedings.
- At the first (2010) trial, Deputy Bill Starr—a last-minute witness—volunteered testimony about his position in a SWAT vehicle in violation of an in limine ruling; the trial judge declared a mistrial.
- Defendants pleaded once in jeopardy and requested jury adjudication of that plea; the trial court decided the prosecutor’s intent was a legal question and found no intentional misconduct.
- On appeal (People v. Bell (Bell I)), the Court of Appeal held the proper test is whether the jeopardy plea raises an issue of fact (requiring a jury); it conditionally reversed and remanded, allowing the prosecution to move to strike the pleas.
- On remand the People moved to strike; after a hearing the trial court granted the motion, concluding the evidence supported only the inference that prosecutor Chad Louie’s failure to advise Starr was an oversight, not intentional misconduct to goad a mistrial.
- The court (1) affirmed the order striking the jeopardy pleas, (2) accepted the AG’s concession to strike a 10-year personal firearm enhancement as to Williams, and (3) remanded for resentencing so the trial court may exercise discretion under SB 620 and SB 1393.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People properly moved to strike defendants’ once-in-jeopardy pleas | The evidence supports only the single inference that prosecutor’s failure to advise Starr was inadvertent; no factual dispute requiring a jury. | The prosecutor’s conduct and surrounding circumstances (missing key witness Turner; prior warnings) raise factual issues about intent that must go to a jury. | Motion to strike was properly granted: de novo review finds defendants failed to produce substantial evidence from which wrongful prosecutorial intent could reasonably be inferred. |
| Whether prosecutor intentionally goaded a mistrial (Oregon v. Kennedy standard) | No — Louie testified the violation was an oversight, he opposed mistrial, and had incentives to proceed rather than provoke mistrial. | Yes — missing critical witness Turner, prior in limine warnings, and other conduct support inference of intent to force mistrial to obtain retrial advantage. | Held no evidence supports an inference of intent to provoke mistrial; Starr’s volunteered response and Louie’s testimony point to inadvertence. |
| Whether gang expert’s testimony violated People v. Sanchez (testimonial hearsay) | Concedes some testimonial hearsay was elicited but argues error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming untainted gang evidence. | Testimony included case-specific out-of-court statements (field interview cards, reports) inadmissible under Sanchez and Crawford. | Court finds Sanchez error as to certain incidents but concludes the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because strong, untainted proof of gang membership existed. |
| Whether remand is required for resentencing under SB 620 and SB 1393 | Remand unnecessary; original sentencing choices (upper terms, denial of Romero) show court would not have exercised new discretion. | Remand required so the trial court can exercise its newly granted discretion; record does not clearly indicate the court would decline to strike enhancements. | Remand ordered: under McDaniels/Almanza II standard, remand is required unless record clearly shows court would not have exercised discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (intent-to-provoke-mistrial standard)
- People v. Batts, 30 Cal.4th 660 (Cal. 2003) (prosecutorial misconduct and intent standards)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert may not relay case-specific testimonial hearsay)
- People v. Mason, 200 Cal.App.2d 282 (Cal. 1962) (prosecution may move to strike special pleas lacking evidentiary support)
- People v. Ceja, 106 Cal.App.4th 1071 (Cal. 2003) (standard for removing special-plea issues from jury)
- People v. Newell, 192 Cal. 659 (Cal. 1923) (when special pleas present only questions of law)
- People v. McDaniels, 22 Cal.App.5th 420 (Cal. 2018) (remand standard under SB 620/SB 1393)
- People v. Almanza, 24 Cal.App.5th 1104 (Cal. 2018) (clarifying remand standard; Almanza II)