People v. Harrison
B272132
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On June 11, 2014, Clifford Harrison allegedly pointed a .40 semiautomatic handgun at his cousin Donnis Moore, demanded money, and threatened to kill him; police later found a loaded handgun in the home.
- Harrison was charged with felon in possession of a firearm (count 1), assault-related counts (2 & 3), and making criminal threats (count 4); he admitted prior-strike and serious-felony enhancements.
- At the first trial (self-represented), Harrison admitted possession of the firearm but denied using it; an arresting officer testified Harrison waived Miranda rights and confessed to using the gun.
- After a mistrial on counts 2 and 3 and competency proceedings, defense counsel discovered a digital in-car video (DICV) recording of the Miranda interrogation that showed Harrison invoking his right to remain silent and the officer questioning him thereafter.
- At a second trial the recorded statements were excluded under Miranda and Harrison was acquitted on counts 2 and 3; defense then moved for a new trial on counts 1 and 4 alleging Brady nondisclosure of the video at the first trial.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion as waived; the Court of Appeal reversed count 4 (criminal threats) for Brady error, affirmed count 1 but vacated the sentence, and ordered remand for retrial on count 4 and for proceedings on the prior-strike admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution violated Brady by failing to produce DICV before first trial | Prosecutor: report referenced "DICV" and defense could have discovered it; no Brady prejudice | Harrison: video was favorable/impeaching, was not disclosed, and deprived him of a fair trial on count 4 | Yes — Brady violation; video was favorable, undisclosed, and materially prejudicial to count 4; conviction on count 4 reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether defendant waived Brady by failing to object to confession at trial | Prosecutor: failure to object under Evidence Code §353 forfeits complaint | Harrison: Brady is self-executing; disclosure is prosecutor's duty regardless of objection | Waiver inapplicable — Brady disclosure is sua sponte; failure to object does not negate Brady duty |
| Whether undisclosed video required reversal of felon-in-possession conviction (count 1) | Harrison: nondisclosure affected defense strategy and admissions; should overturn count 1 | People: Harrison twice admitted possession; admissions independent of Brady material | No reversal — count 1 conviction affirmed; admissions were factual and speculative to claim they’d change tactic |
| Whether prior-strike enhancement admission was knowing and voluntary | People conceded adequacy of advisement | Harrison: trial court failed to advise rights on admissions | Remand required — court did not advise defendant of constitutional rights for waiver of enhancements; reverse and remand on enhancement issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (warnings and right to remain silent; post-invocation interrogation forbidden)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard for Brady — undermining confidence in verdict)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (Brady/Bagley framework on materiality and prejudice)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (requirement that waivers of constitutional rights be knowing and voluntary)
- People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal.4th 263 (prosecutor's duty to disclose Brady material)
- People v. Salazar, 35 Cal.4th 1031 (Brady elements and materiality focus)
- People v. Kasim, 56 Cal.App.4th 1360 (prosecution's constructive possession/disclosure duties)