People v. Mena
54 Cal. 4th 146
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Two teens were attacked by Hispanic men; a curbside showup identified multiple suspects, including Mena.
- Police later recovered a knife on Mena and found bats at a nearby residence.
- Jesus identified four men at a curbside showup; Jonathan identified none in court.
- A pretrial motion sought a physical lineup for Jesus; the trial court denied it.
- At trial, Jesus identified Mena and others; Jonathan made no identification in court.
- Court of Appeal held the lineup denial was forfeited on appeal due to no writ, but we reverse on procedural grounds and affirm on harmless-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the lineup motion can be challenged on postjudgment appeal without writ relief | People contend writ relief is not required for appellate review | Mena contends writ relief was required to preserve the issue | Reviewed as a pre-judgment order under §1259; not barred from appeal |
| Source of the due process right to a lineup in Evans | Evans framed a state due process right to a lineup | Disposition of the right under federal Brady/ Wardius logic | Source of the Evans lineup right is the California Constitution; analyzed under Watson |
| Standard of prejudice to assess lineup-denial error on appeal | Chapman harmlessness standard should apply | Watson standard applies for prejudice | Watson standard applied; prejudice shown only if reasonably probable outcome would differ |
| Harmlessness of any lineup-denial error in this case | Error could have affected identification | No substantial impact given witness did not identify in court | Error deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Watson (and preserved even under Chapman) |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 617 (Cal. 1974) (established Evans lineup right; pretrial discovery-like procedure)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (prejudice standard for due process claims (Watson))
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (material evidence nondisclosure; limits on discovery rights)
- Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1973) (reciprocal discovery; informs Evans/Wardius reasoning)
- Memro, 38 Cal.3d 658 (Cal. 1985) (refusal to impose writ prerequisite for discovery error appeal)
- People v. Batts, 30 Cal.4th 660 (Cal. 2003) (precludes writ prerequisite for certain double jeopardy or related challenges)
- In re Matthew C., 6 Cal.4th 386 (Cal. 1993) (legislative response to timeliness of writ review in dependency matters)
- Pow ers v. City of Richmond, 10 Cal.4th 85 (Cal. 1995) (discussion of statutory writ review vs appeal)