People v. Regalado-Mandujano CA1/3, A166546

Gonzalo Regalado-Mandujano, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of multiple counts of unlawful sexual penetration and lewd conduct with a child (his cousin, Jane Doe), occurring between 2010-2012 when Doe was 7-9 years old.
The prosecution presented evidence of repeated incidents of abuse, both at Doe's home and other locations, and described significant psychological harm to Doe, including severe depression, self-harm, and a suicide attempt after a family reunion with defendant in 2017.
Incriminating statements were made by Regalado-Mandujano during a police interview in Spanish, after being advised of his Miranda rights with a translation disputed for accuracy.
On the eve of trial, the prosecution disclosed new details regarding Doe’s mental health, leading defendant to seek a mistrial based on untimely discovery.
The trial court sentenced Regalado-Mandujano to 30 years to life and ordered $750,000 in noneconomic restitution to Doe, prompting an appeal on Miranda, discovery, and restitution grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of statements given after Spanish Miranda warning	Translation adequate; defendant understood his rights	Miranda warning mistranslated; did not adequately inform of rights	Sufficient advisement; waiver was valid
Prosecutorial discovery violation and motion for mistrial	Timely disclosure of most info; any late info was not prejudicial	Late disclosure prejudiced defense; inability to prepare or get experts	No incurable harm; continuance sufficient
Noneconomic restitution amount ($750,000)	Award appropriate due to ongoing significant harm to victim	Award excessive; not proportional to acts compared to other cases	Amount within court’s discretion

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (established requirement of advising suspects of rights during custodial interrogation)
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981) (Miranda warnings do not require a rigid formulation)
People v. Diaz, 140 Cal.App.3d 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (translation must effectively and expressly explain rights)
People v. Cruz, 44 Cal.4th 636 (Cal. 2008) (trial court’s credibility findings on Miranda issues are reviewed for substantial evidence)
People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997) (defendant must show prejudice from discovery delay)
People v. Ortiz, 53 Cal.App.4th 791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (no fixed standard for noneconomic restitution; trial court has wide discretion)
People v. Smith, 198 Cal.App.4th 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (restitution order upheld absent passion or prejudice)