People v. Cruz
2 Cal. App. 5th 1178
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Daniel Blea Cruz, Jr. convicted of three counts of lewd conduct with a child under 14 (Pen. Code § 288(a)); sentenced to 105 years to life after consecutive terms and sentence enhancements.
- Three minor victims (D.R., L.S., C.H.) testified to separate sexual acts by Cruz in 2012–2013; GPS data corroborated presence at victims’ addresses.
- Prosecution introduced other sexual-offense evidence under Evidence Code § 1108; the trial court instructed the jury using CALJIC No. 2.50.01 language that applied a preponderance standard to both charged and uncharged offenses for propensity findings.
- Cruz stipulated to one prior sexual-conduct conviction; the court accepted the admission without giving the admonitions required by In re Yurko, according to Cruz.
- Cruz appealed arguing (1) the jury instruction improperly allowed charged offenses to be treated as proved by a preponderance for propensity purposes, thereby lowering the reasonable-doubt standard; and (2) the court failed to give adequate Yurko advisement before accepting his prior-conviction admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALJIC No. 2.50.01 as given improperly allowed the jury to find charged offenses by a preponderance for propensity and thereby reduce the reasonable-doubt standard | People: instruction was proper because CALJIC had been upheld for uncharged acts and overall instructions included reasonable-doubt language | Cruz: instruction told jurors they could find charged offenses true by a preponderance, then use that to infer propensity and ultimately find guilt — effectively lowering the burden of proof | Reversed: instruction was reversible error per se; charged offenses must be treated as proved beyond a reasonable doubt before being used for propensity under § 1108 (Villatoro principle applied) |
| Whether the court gave adequate Yurko advisements before accepting Cruz’s admission of a prior conviction | People: acceptance of stipulation was procedurally valid | Cruz: court failed to give required advisement of rights under In re Yurko before accepting admission of prior conviction | Reversed on this ground as well (court agreed Yurko advisement was inadequate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Villatoro v. California, 54 Cal.4th 1152 (court endorsed requiring charged offenses be treated in a way that prevents lowering reasonable-doubt standard when used for propensity)
- Reliford v. California, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (upheld CALJIC pattern for use of uncharged acts under § 1108)
- Falsetta v. California, 21 Cal.4th 903 (discussed admissibility of other sexual-offense evidence under § 1108)
- Aranda v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.4th 342 (explains structural error when instructions lower reasonable-doubt standard)
- In re Yurko, 10 Cal.3d 857 (requires specific advisements before accepting admissions of prior convictions)