People v. Hernandez
51 Cal. 4th 733
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Stevens held that a deputy at the witness stand is not inherently prejudicial but requires case-specific discretion.
- This case involved a deputy stationed behind the defendant during testimony, decided without individualized findings.
- Defense complained the deputy’s presence was highly prejudicial and not warranted by individualized factors.
- The court did not follow Stevens’ record-based reasoning and treated security as a routine policy.
- Jury convicted the defendant of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury; appellate relief centered on security measures and habeas corpus claims.
- Supreme Court granted review to decide if the deputy placement was error and whether it was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court's deputy-at-witness-stand order an abuse of discretion? | People argues it followed a routine security policy. | Defendant argues the measure was not individualized and prejudicial. | Yes, abuse of discretion; policy-based, not case-specific. |
| What is the proper harmless-error standard for this security error? | Watson applies to state-law harmless error. | Chapman should apply if the error is inherently prejudicial. | Watson applies; error deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Should the court have given a cautionary instruction about custodial status? | Not necessary; existing instructions were sufficient. | A cautionary instruction should be given upon request. | Trial court erred by not offering a cautionary instruction; not outcome-determinative. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stevens, 47 Cal.4th 625 (Cal. 2009) (approved that deputy near witness stand is not inherently prejudicial but requires case-specific justification and record)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (unjustified visible shackling violates due process; strict scrutiny for inherently prejudicial security measures)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (guards in courtroom not inherently prejudicial; context matters for prejudice)
- Duran, 16 Cal.3d 282 (Cal. 1976) (security procedures generally routine; but abusive decisions require record justification)
- Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (harmless-error standard for non-inherently prejudicial state-law errors)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt for federal constitutional errors)