50 Cal.App.5th 852
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Jessie Reneaux lived with girlfriend L.E.; police responded to violent disturbances in August 2015; L.E. had visible bruises and reported being afraid and trapped.
- Two jail calls (Sept. 9, 2015 and Jan. 9, 2016) from Reneaux to L.E. included exhortations that she say her prior report was false and indications about court dates/subpoena.
- Shortly after the Sept. 9 call L.E. contacted police/DA saying she had lied; she later refused to testify at trial even after court-ordered immunity and was held in contempt.
- The trial court admitted L.E.’s out-of-court testimonial statements to officers under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine, and a jury convicted Reneaux of dissuading a witness, false imprisonment, and inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant; several prior-conviction enhancements were found true.
- The trial court imposed consecutive prison terms (aggregate ~21 years 4 months) and added sentence enhancements; on appeal the court affirmed convictions, remanded for discretionary resentencing under SB 1393, and struck prior-prison-term enhancements under SB 136.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E.’s testimonial out-of-court statements were admissible despite Crawford’s Confrontation Clause protections because defendant forfeited confrontation by wrongdoing | Reneaux’s jail calls show he intended to and did procure L.E.’s unavailability (she recanted and refused to testify), so forfeiture-by-wrongdoing admits her statements | Calls were nonthreatening cajoling; intent to procure unavailability not proved; counsel’s advice caused refusal | Court: substantial evidence supports intent and causation; forfeiture applies and admission was proper |
| Whether imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences was an abuse of discretion | Crimes were distinct acts with separate objectives (injury, dissuasion, confinement), supporting consecutive terms | Offenses were part of a single course of conduct and should run concurrently | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; consecutive terms upheld |
| Whether SB 1393 (2019) requires remand to allow court discretion to strike prior serious-felony enhancements | People concede remand appropriate to allow trial court to consider striking §667(a) enhancements | Defendant sought remand for resentencing under new discretion | Court: remand ordered for limited resentencing under §1385 and §667(a) as amended by SB 1393 |
| Whether SB 136 (2020) requires striking prior-prison-term enhancements under §667.5(b) | People concede the change applies retroactively and enhancements should be stricken | Defendant requested modification consistent with SB 136 | Court: §667.5(b) enhancements stricken and judgment modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible absent unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires defendant intended to prevent witness testimony)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (early articulation of forfeiture when witness is kept away by defendant’s procurement)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (Confrontation Clause analysis re: testimonial statements; acknowledged forfeiture doctrine exists)
- Carlson v. Attorney General of California, 791 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2015) (forfeiture may rest on broad affirmative acts—secreting/insulating witnesses—from which concealment and intent may be inferred)
- Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir. 1982) (pre-Crawford case upholding forfeiture based on persuasion/control and concerted efforts to prevent testimony)
- People v. Kerley, 23 Cal.App.5th 513 (2018) (discussion of forfeiture elements and standards of review)
- People v. Banos, 178 Cal.App.4th 483 (2009) (analysis of unavailability and forfeiture issues)