432 P.3d 536
Cal.2018Background
- Defendant Cedric Johnson was convicted in a retrial (after a prior mistrial) of two first-degree murders and received the death penalty; appeal is automatic.
- Throughout pretrial and trial proceedings Johnson repeatedly disrupted court: profanity, spitting on and threatening counsel, and a violent assault on his attorney in the jury assembly room before ~400 prospective jurors.
- After the assembly-room assault (stun belt failed; deputies intervened), the trial court excluded Johnson from the courtroom for the remainder of the retrial and provided audio/transcript access, which Johnson refused to use.
- At the guilt-phase, the court attempted a remote testimony procedure; during a bench “dry run” Johnson refused to follow question-and-answer rules and the court terminated the attempt, finding he forfeited his right to testify.
- The record included contested eyewitness and accomplice testimony (e.g., Newton and Huggins), impeachment material, and penalty-phase evidence including the assault on counsel admitted as aggravation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion from courtroom for entirety of retrial | Exclusion justified: defendant forfeited right to be present by violent assault and persistent disruption; safety and trial integrity require removal | Removal violated right to be present; court erred by deciding without defendant present and without full hearing; removal before trial commencement was premature | Exclusion upheld: conduct (violent assault in open court, repeated disruptions) forfeited right; court acted within discretion and need not hold full evidentiary hearing or appoint new counsel at that time |
| Forfeiture/waiver of right to testify | Forfeited at guilt phase by misconduct during remote-test dry run; at penalty phase defendant declined to cooperate, so waiver implied | Court improperly terminated testimony; misled about jury presence; counsel’s participation in dry run created conflict | Forfeiture/waiver upheld: numerous warnings, dry run showed refusal to abide Q&A; no Fifth Amendment or due process violation shown |
| Failure to hold competency hearing sua sponte | No substantial evidence of incompetence; behavior was strategic/malingering and defendant had previously assisted counsel and testified coherently | Court should have sua sponte suspended proceedings and held competency inquiry given psychosis evidence and disruptive conduct | No abuse of discretion: record lacked substantial evidence raising bona fide doubt of competence; trial court reasonably found misconduct, not incapacity |
| Denial of new counsel / Marsden claims | No proper Marsden motion made on cited dates; defendant’s conduct created and cannot be used to manufacture conflict; court properly exercised discretion | Court erred in refusing to replace counsel after repeated requests and assault | No error: defendant did not present adequate Marsden requests; conflicts not shown to be actual or adversely affecting performance |
| Admissibility / remedial response to Huggins’s volunteered remark about prior acquittals | Brief volunteered comment struck and jury admonished; no incurable prejudice | Comment required mistrial or stronger remedy because of high prejudice | No abuse of discretion: admonition cured any prejudice; statement was brief and cumulative of other evidence of witness fear |
| Admission of Rochelle’s out-of-court statement (“C.J. didn’t have to kill him”) | Admissible as prior inconsistent statement with sufficient indicia of personal knowledge for jury to weigh | Hearsay without demonstrating personal knowledge; should have been excluded | Admission upheld: trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility and knowledge were jury questions |
| Exclusion/limitation of cross-examining Detective about Newton’s expectation of benefit | Ruling was tentative and defense later elicited other impeachment; defense failed to press for final ruling so claim forfeited | Exclusion prevented showing motive to fabricate and violated confrontation rights | No reversible error: evidence of Newton’s motive was presented elsewhere; any ruling not finally litigated was forfeited |
| Failure sua sponte to give cautionary instruction for defendant’s oral statements (CALJIC No. 2.71.7) | At time of trial, court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on caution for oral admissions; omission was error | Failure to give instruction prejudiced assessment of Newton’s videotaped statements | Error acknowledged under then-prevailing law but harmless: general credibility instructions and record defects in Newton’s statement made reversal unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970) (defendant may lose right to be present by disruptive conduct)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (right to be present at critical stages)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency standard to stand trial)
- People v. Jackson, 13 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 1996) (limitations on absence and presence rights in capital cases)
- People v. Banks, 59 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal. 2014) (upholding exclusion of defendant from penalty proceedings for extreme conduct)
- People v. Diaz, 60 Cal.4th 1176 (Cal. 2015) (cautionary instruction for oral admissions required only on request)
- People v. Medina, 11 Cal.4th 694 (Cal. 1995) (forfeiture of presence and related consequences for disruptive defendants)
- People v. Beagle, 6 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1972) (historical duty to caution juries about oral admissions)