75 Cal.App.5th 227
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In Aug. 2019 Jaime Rodolfo Lopez was charged with seven felonies, including three counts of forcible rape of Amalia (the mother of his two minor children).
- Trial occurred Sept. 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic under Los Angeles Superior Court General Order No. 021, which required masks for all persons in courthouse.
- Lopez moved pretrial to be unmasked and to have witnesses testify without masks; the court denied the motion (allowed brief unmasking for introductions) and witnesses (including Lopez) testified while masked.
- Jury convicted Lopez on six counts; court sentenced him to 16 years and imposed a 10-year postconviction protective order under Penal Code §136.2(i) covering Amalia and his two minor children.
- Lopez appealed, arguing (1) the masking requirement violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and (2) the minor children were improperly included in the postconviction protective order.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Lopez’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring witnesses (and defendant) to wear masks during in‑court testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Masking was necessary to protect public health during the pandemic and did not defeat confrontation because witnesses were present, under oath, and subject to cross‑examination | Masks prevented jurors from observing full facial expressions and defendant’s demeanor, impairing credibility assessment; court should have allowed unmasked testimony or alternatives | No violation. Under Maryland v. Craig, face‑to‑face right is not absolute; masking furthered an important public policy (safety) and reliability was otherwise assured; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether minor children could be included as protected persons in a §136.2(i) postconviction protective order | Prosecutor argued court could include children (citing broader preconviction language) and family court could later modify contact | Children were not victims of the domestic‑violence crimes (they were asleep) and §136.2(i) protective orders are limited to victims; thus inclusion exceeded statutory authority | Children must be removed. §136.2(i)(1) permits postconviction protective orders only as to victims; the children were not victims under that subdivision |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (establishes public‑policy exception to absolute face‑to‑face confrontation; permits non‑face‑to‑face testimony when necessary and reliability is assured)
- United States v. De Jesus‑Casteneda, 705 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholds anonymity/disguise where witness present, under oath, cross‑examined, and demeanor/body language observable)
- People v. Beckemeyer, 238 Cal.App.4th 461 (2015) (explains §136.2 preconviction/postconviction limits and effect of 2011 amendment adding §136.2(i))
- People v. Delarosarauda, 227 Cal.App.4th 205 (2014) (construes former §136.2 limits on issuing postconviction protective orders)