People v. Centeno
60 Cal. 4th 659
| Cal. | 2014Background
- People v. Centeno, defendant convicted of lewd acts on a child under 14 and related offenses in San Bernardino Superior Court.
- Prosecutor used a visual diagram (outline of California) to illustrate proof beyond a reasonable doubt during rebuttal closing.
- Trial court instructed on presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt prior to closing arguments.
- Jane Doe, a seven-year-old, testified inconsistently; defense highlighted lack of corroboration and credibility issues.
- Prosecutor argued that a “reasonable” interpretation of the evidence could satisfy the burden of proof, using the diagram and a hypothetical trial.
- Appellate court reversed the judgment, holding the diagramal analogy misled the jury about the standard of proof and diluted the People’s burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the prosecutor misstate the reasonable doubt standard through a visual aid | People argued the diagram clarified but actually misled | Centeno contends improper, misleading burden shift | Yes, improper and misleading |
| Was the error forfeited due to lack of objection | People claim nonprejudicial impact, but no objection | No timely objection; not cured by admonition | Forfeited; however, error proved prejudicial in close case |
| Was there ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object | Counsel performance deficient for not objecting | No conceivable tactical purpose for omission | Yes, insufficient strategic justification; prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Medina, 11 Cal.4th 694 (Cal. 1995) (cautions against using diagrams to illustrate proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Katzenberger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal. App. 2009) (disapproved use of puzzle-like visuals; dangerous, unwise)
- People v. Otero, 210 Cal.App.4th 865 (Cal. App. 2012) (rejects use of state-outline diagram; harmless where cured by instructions)
- People v. Romero, 44 Cal.4th 386 (Cal. 2008) (upheld that reasonable versus unreasonable debate remains consistent with burden)
- People v. Ellison, 196 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. App. 2011) (prosecutor cannot shift burden by arguing innocence must be reasonable)
- People v. Mendoza, 42 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2007) (discusses deference to instructions vs. argument; closing remarks must not misstate law)