People v. James
A157062
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Chloe James babysat six-month-old D.; D. suffered multiple skull fractures and other injuries after being dropped while in James’s care. Medical testimony doubted a mere boppy-on-floor fall would cause the injuries.
- After initial statements to parents that D. had fallen from a boppy on the floor, detectives interviewed James at the police station; a recorded interview/ interrogation lasted ~2.5 hours with breaks and included confrontations and suggested scenarios. James made inculpatory admissions (including that she "tossed" the baby).
- James was convicted of felony child abuse (Pen. Code § 273a(a)) and found to have personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7(d)); she had a prior serious felony (first-degree burglary), and was sentenced to 18 years.
- On appeal James raised: (1) ineffective assistance for not moving to exclude her statements as involuntary; (2) trial-court error in limiting defense expert testimony (disallowing hypotheticals tied to the video); (3) failure to instruct the jury sua sponte to weigh the reliability of her statements (and related ineffective assistance claim); and (4) denial of a Romero motion to strike the prior strike. She also sought appellate review of the Pitchess ruling.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed on all issues except it agreed the Romero ruling required reconsideration; the case was remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion under Romero/Williams.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not moving to exclude statements as involuntary | People: counsel reasonably declined a futile motion because questioning was not coercive under the totality of circumstances | James: detectives’ interrogation tactics overbore her will; counsel should have moved to exclude the statements | Affirmed: no reversible IAC on this record — counsel may have reasonably concluded voluntariness claim lacked merit and instead attacked reliability at trial |
| Exclusion of hypothetical questions to defense expert (police interrogation techniques) | People: expert had no report; specific fact-based analysis was speculative and potentially irrelevant/undisclosed | James: hypotheticals tracking the video were permissible and necessary to show coercion and unreliability | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion (permitted general expert teaching on false confessions but barred specific fact-by-fact application/hypotheticals); Page governs and Vang does not require different result |
| Jury instruction sua sponte (or IAC for not requesting) that jury must consider reliability of her statements given interrogation | People: existing instructions (CALCRIM 357/358) plus expert testimony and argument were sufficient; no sua sponte pinpoint duty | James: jury needed explicit instruction tying interrogation reliability to guilt determination; counsel ineffective for not requesting such a pinpoint instruction | Affirmed: no sua sponte duty to give a pinpoint instruction; even assuming counsel erred, no prejudice given CALCRIM 358/357, expert testimony, and closing arguments |
| Denial of Romero motion to strike prior strike | People: prior burglary is a qualifying strike; initial opposition to striking | James: prior theft-related crimes tied to past addiction and non-violent; trial court should have weighed Williams factors | Remanded: trial court did not adequately apply Williams factors or explain balancing; limited remand to reconsider Romero motion under applicable principles |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carrington, 47 Cal.4th 145 (2009) (voluntariness and admissibility of custodial statements; permissible interrogation tactics)
- People v. Cunningham, 61 Cal.4th 609 (2015) (totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness; role of police coercion and suspect traits)
- People v. Holloway, 33 Cal.4th 96 (2004) (Miranda warnings permit questioning absent threats or false promises; permissible use of evidence summaries/theories)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (distinguishing admissibility from credibility—jury may weigh how a confession was obtained)
- People v. Page, 2 Cal.App.4th 161 (1991) (expert may teach general false-confession factors but need not apply them in detailed fact-specific testimony)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (2011) (experts may answer hypotheticals that track the evidence, but trial court retains broad discretion)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (standard of appellate review for Romero/Williams decisions — abuse of discretion)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (trial court discretion to strike or dismiss prior strikes)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998) (Williams factors to guide Romero consideration)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974) (procedures for in camera review of police personnel records)