People v. Chenault CA4/1
175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Darrell Chenault was convicted by a jury of 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (Pen. Code § 288(a)) and 2 counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under 14 (§ 288(b)); sentenced to 75 years to life.
- Four child victims (two daughters V. and S.; two nieces C. and F.) testified about repeated sexual abuse occurring over years.
- Before trial, the prosecutor requested, and the trial court permitted, a trained support dog (Asta) to accompany two child witnesses (C., age 13; F., age 11) while they testified; court set procedures to minimize juror distraction.
- Defense objected that the dog’s presence was inherently prejudicial, violated confrontation and due process rights, and that individualized necessity findings were required.
- The court rejected those arguments, implicitly finding the dog would assist testimony and took steps to reduce prejudice; Chenault appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code § 765 and any error would have been harmless; it also ordered correction of the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion under Evid. Code § 765 by allowing a support dog to be present during two child witnesses’ testimony | Prosecution: court may reasonably accommodate child witnesses; dog would aid testimony and be non‑disruptive | Chenault: court improperly allowed dog without individualized showing the child needed it; prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; court may consider circumstances and implicitly found dog would assist; procedures minimized prejudice |
| Whether presence of support dog is inherently prejudicial or violates federal due process / confrontation rights | Dog’s presence does not fundamentally alter confrontation and is not inherently prejudicial; analogous to § 868.5 support persons | Dog creates impermissible emotional vouching for witnesses and risks jury bias; constitutional protections require case‑specific necessity findings | Not inherently prejudicial; comparable to support persons cases and does not as a matter of law violate confrontation/due process rights |
| Standard required before allowing a support dog: case‑specific necessity or less? | Prosecution: no exacting ‘‘necessity’’ showing; court should assess if dog would assist witness and minimize prejudice | Chenault: federal constitution requires case‑specific findings of need (relying on Adams/Maryland v. Craig analogy) | Court rejects requirement of formal necessity finding; trial court should consider witness circumstances and whether dog will assist testimony; implicit findings suffice when supported by record |
| If error occurred, was it prejudicial? | Prosecution: any error harmless given corroborating evidence and convictions on other counts without dogs | Chenault: presence of dog could have improperly bolstered credibility of those witnesses | Harmless under People v. Watson standard; not reasonably probable result would differ without dog; jury convicted other victims testifying without a dog |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Spence, 212 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court may allow therapy/support dog under Evid. Code § 765)
- People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal.4th 147 (Cal. 2007) (Evid. Code § 765 gives trial court broad discretion to protect child witnesses)
- People v. Myles, 53 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2012) (mere presence of support person does not, absent interference, violate confrontation/due process)
- People v. Ybarra, 166 Cal.App.4th 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (rejecting claims that support persons are inherently prejudicial)
- People v. Adams, 19 Cal.App.4th 412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (argued for case‑specific necessity finding for support persons)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988) (screen between defendant and witness implicates confrontation clause)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (one‑way closed circuit television for child witness requires showing necessity to protect witness)