76 Cal.App.5th 523
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Jonathan Maurice Edwards was convicted by a jury of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187) of his cellmate Raul Sanchez Aguayo; jury found great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7).
- Jury selection and trial occurred Oct–Nov 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic; the trial judge ordered everyone in the courtroom, including witnesses, to wear masks at all times.
- Edwards moved to bar witnesses from testifying while wearing masks, arguing the order violated his Sixth Amendment and California Confrontation Clause rights; the court denied the motion.
- Evidence of great bodily injury included multiple blows to Aguayo’s face (headbutts and punches), observed swelling and heavy bleeding, photos of his bloodied face, and testimony that Aguayo was unconscious and possibly not breathing.
- Edwards filed a Romero motion to strike a 2016 attempted robbery “strike” prior; the trial court denied the motion, citing the recency of the prior and escalating criminal conduct. Edwards argued his severe, long‑standing mental illness warranted striking the prior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Edwards) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring witnesses to wear masks during testimony violated the Confrontation Clause | Court safety order permitted masks; public‑health measures do not negate confrontation when witness is seen, heard, and cross‑examined | Masks impair jurors’ ability to see witness’s face and test demeanor, infringing confrontation rights | Denied; mask requirement did not violate confrontation rights given pandemic and witnesses were seen, heard, and cross‑examined |
| Whether the great bodily injury finding lacked substantial evidence | Evidence (blows, swelling, bleeding, unconsciousness, photos) supports a substantial/substantial injury | Argued injury not proven to be “great” beyond reasonable dispute | Affirmed; sufficient evidence supported the great bodily injury finding |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying the Romero motion to strike the 2016 strike prior | Recent prior and subsequent escalation of criminal conduct justified denying strike | Mental‑illness history and rehabilitation showed the prior should be struck as inconsistent with Three Strikes purposes | Denied; no abuse of discretion—decision was reasonable given recency and escalating conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lopez, 75 Cal.App.5th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (upholding pandemic mask precautions in courtrooms under confrontation analysis)
- People v. Alvarez, 75 Cal.App.5th 28 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (similar analysis permitting health‑safety measures during testimony)
- People v. Cross, 45 Cal.4th 58 (Cal. 2008) (jury decides the line between significant and non‑significant injury)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court has discretion to dismiss prior strikes)
- People v. Brugman, 62 Cal.App.5th 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (standard for abuse of discretion when refusing to strike a prior)