People v. Harzan, G064798

Harzan, age 65, exchanged sexually explicit messages with an undercover detective posing as a 13-year-old girl after posting a Craigslist ad seeking a “young” friend. ¹
During the exchanges, Harzan repeatedly discussed meeting for sex, sexual “training,” contraception, and his own sexual experience, and police arrested him when he arrived at a planned meeting place. ²
The prosecution charged Harzan with communicating with and arranging to meet a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense. ³
Before trial, the prosecution sought to admit evidence that Harzan sexually molested two girls when he was a teen, but the court excluded it from the case-in-chief as too prejudicial. ⁴
The court ruled the same prior misconduct evidence would be admissible if Harzan raised entrapment, so Harzan abandoned that defense and was convicted. ⁵
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the entrapment-based ruling violated Harzan’s right to present a defense, though the evidence was otherwise sufficient for retrial. ⁶

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the prior sexual misconduct evidence admissible if Harzan raised entrapment? ⁷	People said it rebutted entrapment by showing motive and intent.	Harzan said entrapment is objective, so his prior intent was irrelevant.	No; the evidence was inadmissible for entrapment rebuttal. ⁸
Was Harzan’s appellate challenge preserved despite not raising entrapment at trial? ⁹	People said no ruling reviewable because the evidence was never admitted.	Harzan said the ruling forced abandonment of a viable defense.	Yes; the issue was reviewable. ¹⁰
Did the ruling violate Harzan’s right to present a defense? ¹¹	People said Harzan made a strategic choice to forego entrapment.	Harzan said he was forced to surrender a supported defense to avoid prejudice.	Yes; the ruling unconstitutionally burdened his defense. ¹²
Was the constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? ¹³	People said the evidence of guilt was strong.	Harzan said entrapment evidence could have mattered to the verdict.	No; the error was not harmless. ¹⁴
Was the evidence sufficient to support retrial? ¹⁵	People said the texts showed intent to commit the charged offenses.	Harzan said intent evidence was insufficient.	Yes; substantial evidence supported the convictions. ¹⁶

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (preservation rule for in limine impeachment rulings ¹⁷)
People v. Collins, 42 Cal.3d 378 (Cal. 1986) (defendant must testify to challenge certain impeachment rulings ¹⁸)
People v. Roldan, 35 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2005) (uncharged misconduct admissibility under section 352 ¹⁹)
People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (uncharged offenses are highly prejudicial and need strong probative value ²⁰)
People v. Barraza, 23 Cal.3d 675 (Cal. 1979) (California’s objective entrapment test focuses on police conduct, not predisposition ²¹)
People v. Foster, 36 Cal.App.3d 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (older subjective-entrapment case allowing predisposition evidence ²²)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (state may not arbitrarily block a defense absent valid justification ²³)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional right to present a defense ²⁴)
People v. Demetrulias, 39 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006) (Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applied to defense-related error ²⁵)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard ²⁶)
People v. Aranda, 55 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2012) (reversal required unless error was insignificant beyond reasonable possibility ²⁷)
People v. Korwin, 36 Cal.App.5th 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (minor-victim statutes require belief the victim was real, even if undercover ²⁸)