People v. Polk
190 Cal. App. 4th 1183
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder after acting as her own attorney; husband found stabbed to death in a cottage behind their home; defendant admitted stabbing but claimed self-defense.
- Prosecution could not explain a peremptory challenge of a female juror; defendant challenged heat-of-passion instruction and admission of police statements under Miranda.
- Defendant’s statements to police were admitted despite Miranda warnings not fully compliant; defense argued coercion and improper pre-warning statements.
- County sought reimbursement of defense costs from defendant’s home equity lien; trial court did not hold a present-ability-to-pay hearing, treating the lien as sufficient.
- Trial evidence included threats toward Felix, footprint and hair evidence linking defendant to the scene, and expert testimony on cause of death; defendant testified to self-defense.
- Court remanded to hold a hearing on defendant’s present ability to pay the reimbursable costs and vacated the reimbursement order while affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miranda warnings adequacy preserved | County relied on prior ruling; warnings defective. | Defendant did not preserve the substantive adequacy challenge. | forfeited; issue not preserved on appeal. |
| Waiver/forfeiture of Miranda challenge | Failure to raise specific Miranda sufficiency grounds sustains waiver. | Counsel’s prior actions or self-representation could preserve the issue. | Forfeiture affirmed; no reversal on Miranda issue. |
| Juror misconduct evidence and hearing | Potential misconduct warranted an evidentiary hearing. | There was insufficient substantial evidence of prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; no substantial prejudice found. |
| Reimbursement of defense costs and ability to pay | County may obtain reimbursement via section 987.8; lien secured. | Need an ability-to-pay hearing before enforcing reimbursement; lien alone insufficient. | Reimbursement order vacated; remanded for an ability-to-pay hearing. |
| Harmless error/prejudice of Miranda violations | Statements were impeachment and cumulative; strong evidence of guilt. | Statements could be highly prejudicial and affect verdict. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversal on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bradford, 169 Cal.App.4th 843 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (Miranda warnings deficient; suppression issues where raised; harmless error analysis applied)
- People v. Rundle, 43 Cal.4th 76 (Cal. 2008) ( forfeiture principles for Miranda issues; waiver matters in appellate review)
- People v. Bloom, 48 Cal.3d 1194 (Cal. 1989) (self-representation; ineffective assistance standards limited by defendant’s role)
- People v. DePriest, 42 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2007) (impeachment use of voluntary statements; admissibility for impeachment)
- People v. Wilson, 44 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 2008) (juror misconduct; nonprejudicial vs prejudicial communications rule and prejudice rebuttal standards)
- People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) (guidance on denying new-trial motions for juror misconduct; evaluating prejudice)