People v. Jones
36 Cal. App. 5th 1028
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Carl Jones was convicted of felony sodomy of an unconscious victim (Pen. Code § 286(f)).
- A video of the victim's roommate recounting what she observed was admitted; parties disputed whether the roommate heard the victim say "I'm a little horny," which would bear on consciousness/consent.
- On appeal Jones argued the trial court erred by not providing the jury a transcript containing that line; the court instructed the jury the video itself, not any transcript, was the evidence.
- After briefing, Jones relied on People v. Dueñas to challenge imposition of a $300 restitution fine and $70 court assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing (Dueñas error).
- The Court concluded Jones did not forfeit the Dueñas claim because earlier law (People v. Long and statute) made an objection at sentencing futile, but found any Dueñas error harmless because Jones could earn prison wages sufficient to satisfy the $370 during his term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not giving jury a transcript line "I'm a little horny" | People: no error; video is controlling evidence, transcript not binding | Jones: jury should have been given transcript including that line because it impacts consent/consciousness | Court: no reversible error; jury was correctly told video is the evidence |
| Whether imposition of $300 restitution fine and $70 assessments without ability-to-pay hearing violated due process (Dueñas error) | People: argue forfeiture or harmless error | Jones: Dueñas requires ability-to-pay hearing; trial court violated due process | Court: Not forfeited (objection would have been futile pre-Dueñas); Dueñas error occurred but was harmless on this record |
| Whether forfeiture doctrine bars raising Dueñas on appeal | People: argue forfeiture for failure to object at trial | Jones: pre-Dueñas law made objection futile | Court: Forfeiture excused because Long and statutory scheme made objection unforeseeable/unavailing |
| Whether Dueñas error requires automatic reversal | People: argue harmlessness | Jones: does not press for automatic reversal | Court: Applied Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and found error harmless given defendant could earn prison wages to pay $370 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App.) (ability-to-pay hearing required before imposing certain fines/assessments)
- People v. Long, 164 Cal.App.3d 820 (Cal. Ct. App.) (upheld restitution fine without ability-to-pay inquiry under prior law)
- People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2017) (forfeiture excused where objection would have been futile under then-existing law)
- People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 2007) (analysis of foreseeability for forfeiture when law changes)
- People v. Frandsen, 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 (Cal. Ct. App.) (contrasting view on forfeiture re: Dueñas)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)