98 Cal.App.5th 804
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Defendant Menique Lashon was convicted of one count of second-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder, with special circumstance findings.
- Lashon sought to challenge her conviction on direct appeal by asserting a claim under the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA), Penal Code § 745, alleging judicial bias based on race.
- The appellate court initially found Lashon forfeited her CRJA claim by not raising it in the trial court before judgment.
- The California Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Assembly Bill No. 1118 (AB 1118), which amended the CRJA to clarify procedures for raising claims on direct appeal.
- On reconsideration, the appellate court maintained that claims under § 745 must comply with established rules of appellate forfeiture; Lashon again was found to have forfeited her right to challenge on direct appeal due to her failure to raise the issue below.
- Lashon's additional request for the appellate court to stay her appeal and remand to allow a CRJA motion in the trial court was denied, as she had a pending habeas corpus petition addressing these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a CRJA § 745 claim be raised for the first time on direct appeal under AB 1118? | Lashon: CRJA/AB 1118 allow for direct appeal claims. | State: General forfeiture rules apply; issue must be preserved. | No; general rules of forfeiture still apply. |
| Does the importance of racial bias issues trump forfeiture doctrine? | Lashon: Racial bias is a substantial right, so no forfeiture. | State: Statutory procedures and preservation rules control. | No exception for racial bias claims was found. |
| Should the appeal be stayed and remanded for CRJA motion development? | Lashon: Further factual development is needed. | State: Lashon had chance in trial court; now has habeas petition. | No stay/remand; habeas petition provides remedy. |
| Was any futility or lack of opportunity shown to excuse failure to object? | Lashon: Objection would have been futile. | State: Motion could have been filed post-trial; no futility. | No futility shown; claim remains forfeited. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elliot, 53 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 2012) (forfeiture of claim when not raised at trial, specifically racial bias in jury selection)
- People v. Simon, 25 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2001) (explains rationale for forfeiture and preservation doctrines)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (holds pure questions of law may be raised for the first time on appeal, with limitations)
- People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 1993) (exceptions to forfeiture doctrine considered for futility)