People v. Moreno CA2/2, B304632

Defendant Noe Moreno was charged with multiple sex offenses against children, convicted on counts 3, 5, 8, and 9, and sentenced mainly to three consecutive 15-to-life terms (counts 3, 8, 9); count 5 received a concurrent 12-year determinate term after the court struck a §667.61 enhancement.
Victims included Rosa P. (detailed long-term abuse beginning ~age 4–7) and S.A. (touched at ~7–8). Erika and other family members also testified.
During trial a juror circulated a newspaper cartoon lampooning juries; several jurors read and laughed at it. Defense moved for mistrial or discharge.
Defense sought to admit testimony that Ebony (another child) had admitted fabricating allegations, arguing this showed S.A. might also lie; the court excluded that impeachment evidence as irrelevant/hearsay.
Defendant made admissions in recorded jail phone calls apologizing and acknowledging he had done things to the daughters (saying he could not say they were lying and that the conduct had been ongoing). Appellate court affirmed conviction and denied relief on the three contested matters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror cartoon / mistrial	Cartoon unrelated to case; no juror misconduct; defendant must show prejudice under ordinary error standard	Sharing cartoon was juror misconduct showing bias; prejudice presumed; mistrial or discharge required	No misconduct found; court individually polled jurors, credited their statements, no abuse of discretion; any error harmless given admissions and strong evidence
Exclusion of Ebony’s recantation (impeachment of S.A.)	Testimony about Ebony lying was irrelevant/hearsay regarding S.A.’s state of mind and lacked proof of conspiracy or communication; court properly excluded it	Ebony admitted inventing claims identical to S.A.’s, showing willingness to fabricate and thus impeaching S.A.	Exclusion was within court’s discretion as speculative as to S.A.’s state of mind; even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of defendant’s admissions and Rosa/S.A. testimony
Sentencing on count 5 (§288.5)	Court properly struck §667.61 enhancement for count 5 and imposed determinate concurrent middle term	Claimed One Strike life term unauthorized because §288.5 didn’t qualify at time of offense; sought remand for resentencing	Remand unnecessary; trial court already struck the §667.61 multiple-victim allegation and imposed a concurrent 12-year determinate term on count 5

People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (2010) (distinguishes misconduct that warrants presumed prejudice from ordinary trial error requiring proof of prejudice)
People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d 771 (1991) (presumed prejudice arises only from true juror misconduct)
In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273 (1999) (defines juror misconduct and examples of overt violations of juror duties)
In re Carpenter, 9 Cal.4th 634 (1995) (outside information is misconduct only if it relates to the pending case)
People v. Ayala, 23 Cal.4th 225 (2000) (standard for granting mistrial; abuse of discretion review)
People v. Thornton, 41 Cal.4th 391 (2007) (review standard for exclusion of evidence as irrelevant under Evid. Code §350)
People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (2014) (discusses discretion in admitting evidence and manifest miscarriage of justice standard)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless error standard for nonconstitutional error)