People v. Jones
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- On December 31, 2013 four‑month‑old Savannah died of blunt force trauma and malnutrition; autopsy showed multiple contusions, skull fractures at different stages of healing, and methamphetamine exposure.
- Ashley Jones (mother, primary caregiver) and Johnathan Lucero (father) were charged with murder (Pen. Code §187) and child abuse (§273a); Lucero was tried simultaneously but is not a party to this appeal.
- Prior to a bench trial both defendants executed a short waiver colloquy in which each answered "Yes, sir" to the prosecutor's questions that they understood their right to a jury trial and agreed to have the judge decide the case.
- At the court trial the judge convicted Jones of second‑degree murder (implied malice) and child abuse and found true enhancements; Lucero was found guilty of child abuse but not murder.
- Jones appealed, arguing her jury‑trial waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the Court of Appeal found the waiver inadequate and reversed, but ruled that there was sufficient corroboration of Lucero's accomplice statements and substantial evidence to permit retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of jury‑trial waiver | Waiver was inadequate: colloquy was two brief questions and did not explain that a jury is 12 community members, unanimity requirement, or jury selection rights | Waiver was adequate because Jones acknowledged she understood and agreed to a bench trial; no rigid script required | Waiver was not knowing and intelligent; reversal required because record did not affirmatively show Jones understood the nature of the right she relinquished |
| Corroboration of accomplice testimony (Lucero) | Lucero is an accomplice; his out‑of‑court statements required corroboration which Jones says was insufficient | Corroboration exists in Jones's own conduct and statements (inconsistent statements, failure to call 911, role as primary caregiver, prior visible injuries, malnutrition, consciousness of guilt) | Corroboration was sufficient to connect Jones to the crime; accomplice testimony requirement satisfied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for implied‑malice murder | No direct evidence Jones inflicted the injuries or did so in presence of Lucero; evidence is circumstantial and insufficient | Circumstantial evidence (severe and staged injuries over weeks, Jones as primary caregiver, failure to seek care, inconsistent/false statements) supports inference Jones acted with conscious disregard for life | Substantial evidence supported implied malice and murder conviction (so retrial is permissible) |
| Double jeopardy / retrial after reversal | (argued implicitly) reversal would bar retrial if evidence legally insufficient | Because reversal was for procedural defect in waiver, retrial is allowed if sufficiency review shows evidence could sustain conviction | Retrial is permitted; reviewing court assessed the full record and concluded evidence was sufficient to allow retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (Cal. 2017) (guidance on what trial courts should advise when accepting a jury‑trial waiver)
- People v. Daniels, 3 Cal.5th 961 (Cal. 2017) (waiver valid only if record affirmatively shows it was knowing and intelligent; detailed canvass upheld in that case)
- People v. Weaver, 53 Cal.4th 1056 (Cal. 2012) (jury waiver may be upheld without advising every detail if counsel explained differences)
- People v. Blancett, 15 Cal.App.5th 1200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (brief, perfunctory waiver colloquy may be inadequate)
- People v. Najera, 43 Cal.4th 1132 (Cal. 2008) (accomplice testimony requires corroboration to connect defendant to the crime)
- People v. Romero and Self, 62 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2015) (standards for evaluating corroboration of accomplice testimony)
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 421 (Cal. 2018) (corroborating evidence need not prove every detail but must tend to connect defendant to offense)
- People v. Ghobrial, 5 Cal.5th 250 (Cal. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Cravens, 53 Cal.4th 500 (Cal. 2012) (definition and elements of implied malice murder)