People v. Harrison CA4/2, E076000

Defendant Marquise Harrison was charged with murder and firearm enhancements after a July 31, 2016 shooting in a liquor-store parking lot; surveillance and ballistics linked the gun recovered near his home to the shooting.
After the shooting Harrison later accidentally shot himself; police recovered the handgun and cartridge cases tying him to the scene.
Trial began March 16, 2020; the People presented five witnesses that day. Emergency orders closing the courthouse for jury trials due to COVID-19 issued later that day, producing a midtrial pause of about 63 days.
The trial resumed in May 2020; the jury convicted Harrison of second-degree murder and found firearm-discharge enhancements true. Sentence: aggregate 40 years to life.
Harrison appealed, conceding there was good cause for the continuance but arguing the length/timing of the delay violated due process (warranting mistrial/new trial) and that the judge abused her discretion by not individually questioning jurors about COVID-19 safety concerns before resuming trial.

Issue	People (Respondent)	Harrison (Defendant)	Held
Whether the ~63‑day midtrial continuance required a mistrial or new trial	Continuance was supported by emergency orders (good cause); any delay was curable and not inherently prejudicial	The timing and length created unavoidable prejudice to a fair trial and warranted mistrial	Denied. Good cause existed (COVID‑19 emergency orders); no actual prejudice shown and jury could seek readbacks; mistrial/new trial not required
Whether the trial judge abused discretion by refusing to individually question jurors about COVID‑19 safety before resuming	Group admonitions and jurors’ representations they had no safety concerns were adequate; presumption that jurors followed admonitions	Individual questioning was required because jurors might not disclose safety concerns in a group and fear could impair impartiality	Denied. Court properly relied on group voir dire/admonitions and jurors’ expressed willingness; no abuse of discretion

U.S. v. Hay, 122 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 1997) (court found prejudice where trial recessed late without good cause)
People v. Santamaria, 229 Cal.App.3d 269 (1991) (midtrial recess after deliberations held unsupported by good cause)
People v. Engleman, 116 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14 (1981) (appellate department criticized midtrial continuance by visiting judge)
Stanley v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.5th 164 (2020) (COVID‑19 continuance upheld; public health may justify lengthy delay)
People v. Gray, 37 Cal.4th 168 (2005) (long delay between phases did not require presumption of prejudice absent actual showing)
People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (2006) (standard for mistrial—only for incurable prejudice)
People v. Tucker, 196 Cal.App.4th 1313 (2011) (quarantine for infectious disease constitutes good cause to delay trial)
In re Venable, 86 Cal.App. 585 (1927) (epidemic justified continuance beyond statutory limits)