People v. Breceda, 76 Cal.App.5th 71

Jury empaneled March 4, 2020; prosecution had presented most of its case when the court paused trial on March 16, 2020 after three jurors reported illness amid the emerging COVID‑19 pandemic.
Defendant John Breceda refused to waive time or proceed with an 11‑juror panel and moved for mistrial; the court denied the motion without prejudice and ordered a short recess.
Statewide and local emergency orders (Chief Justice, Governor, presiding judge) suspended jury trials and authorized continuances; the trial remained paused for about 72–73 days and resumed May 26, 2020.
On resumption the court questioned jurors about compliance with admonitions; one juror disclosed limited, non‑substantive communications and was retained.
Trial concluded: acquittal of first‑degree murder, conviction of second‑degree murder and arson; defendant appealed arguing the midtrial COVID pause violated due process and warranted a mistrial or reversal.
Trial court and appellate panel found the pause justified by public‑health orders, that the court safeguarded rights, and that any error was not prejudicial; judgment affirmed with clerical corrections ordered to abstracts of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Breceda)	Held
Whether the ~73‑day midtrial pause violated due process and required a mistrial	Pause was justified by public‑health emergency orders, the court took steps to protect rights, and there is no evidence juror prejudice	Lengthy pause during prosecution's case‑in‑chief likely caused jurors to predecide guilt or discuss case outside court, prejudicing fairness	Denial of mistrial affirmed: pandemic provided good cause for continuance, court properly admonished and vetted jurors, no actual prejudice shown
Whether failure to renew the mistrial motion at resumption forfeited appellate review	Under Mills, denial without prejudice is forfeited if not renewed	Renewal would have been futile given prior denials and juror rulings	Appellate court exercised discretion to reach the constitutional issue despite potential forfeiture
Whether any error is structural (requiring automatic reversal) or subject to harmless‑error review	Any error should be evaluated for prejudice; not structural	The midtrial pause is inherently prejudicial and defies harmless‑error analysis	Court held any alleged error is subject to Chapman harmlessness review and found no prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether abstracts of judgment contain clerical errors	N/A	Identified errors in abstracts (count conviction entry; custody credits)	Ordered correction of abstracts of judgment to match oral judgment and credits

People v. Mills, 48 Cal.4th 158 (Cal. 2010) (forfeiture rule re: motions denied without prejudice)
People v. Collins, 49 Cal.4th 175 (Cal. 2010) (trial court discretion on mistrial motions; prejudice standard)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy‑trial balancing factors referenced)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishing structural from trial errors)
People v. Gray, 37 Cal.4th 168 (Cal. 2005) (presumption jurors follow court instructions; requiring proof of prejudice)
In re Venable, 86 Cal.App. 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927) (epidemic/quarantine can be good cause to continue trial)
People v. Tucker, 196 Cal.App.4th 1313 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (quarantine as good cause; public health can trump speedy‑trial concerns)
People v. Stanley, 50 Cal.App.5th 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (COVID‑era continuances and good‑cause analysis)
U.S. v. Hay, 122 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 1997) (midtrial continuance reversed where alternatives existed and prejudice was probable)
People v. Santamaria, 229 Cal.App.3d 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (adjournment during deliberations risks prejudice; no good cause)
U.S. v. Diggs, 649 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1981) (to reverse for jury separation defendant must show actual prejudice)