17 Cal. App. 5th 451
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Defendant Shawn Daryl Young was convicted by a jury of multiple child-sex offenses (Counts 1–7) involving two daughters (A. and H.) and a neighbor child (M.); sentence: aggregate 18 years determinate plus consecutive indeterminate 85 years to life.
- Allegations arose from disclosures by A., H., and M. (then ages 3–5) describing sexual contact, including finger penetration and insertion of objects; CPS and law enforcement interviewed the children; A. and M. testified at trial; H. largely refused to testify.
- Jury had been selected and sworn; on the morning evidence was to begin, assigned defense counsel (Barton) was ill and a public defender (O’Connor) appeared only to agree to a one-day continuance.
- Two jurors were absent; Juror No. 12 was excused for hospitalization. Juror No. 4 was absent ~15 minutes and, without a hearing in the presence of defendant and his appointed counsel, the trial court excused Juror No. 4 and seated an alternate.
- On appeal the court held the trial court abused its discretion and violated defendant’s right to counsel at a critical stage by removing Juror No. 4 without adequate inquiry and without meaningful defense representation; the resulting error was not shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so the convictions were reversed and remanded for retrial on Counts 1–5 and 7 (People may elect).
- The court also addressed sufficiency: Count 3 (sexual intercourse with H.) was supported by substantial evidence; Count 6 (continuous sexual abuse pertaining to H.) was not and was reversed for insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal of Juror No. 4 without hearing/presence of defendant or counsel | Court acted reasonably after attempts to contact juror; alternate is same as original so no prejudice | Removal occurred without adequate inquiry or hearing, while defendant lacked meaningful counsel, violating right to counsel at critical stage | Reversed: removal was an abuse of discretion and violated right to counsel; error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Forfeiture of juror-removal claim | Failure to object below forfeits claim | Defendant and assigned counsel were absent when removal occurred; stand-in counsel only agreed to continuance and did not meaningfully represent defendant | Court exercised discretion to reach merits; no forfeiture given circumstances |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 3 (sexual intercourse with H.) | Evidence was inconsistent and based on young child’s statements; unreliable | Testimony and forensic interviews provided substantial evidence | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports conviction on Count 3 |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 6 (continuous sexual abuse of H.) | Prosecution: multiple acts and statements supported continuous-abuse theory | Defense: inconsistencies and lack of evidence as to requisite repeated acts over the statutory period | Reversed as to Count 6: insufficient evidence to sustain continuous-sexual-abuse conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wilson, 43 Cal.4th 1 (California 2008) (failure to object to juror removal or move for mistrial forfeits issue absent special circumstances)
- People v. Davidian, 20 Cal.App.2d 720 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937) (post-removal objections may be too late; timing of objection key to forfeiture analysis)
- In re Mendes, 23 Cal.3d 847 (Cal. 1979) (trial court must hold a hearing in presence of litigants and counsel when facts do not clearly establish good cause to remove juror)
- People v. Bell, 61 Cal.App.4th 282 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (removal without hearing permissible where inquiry shows juror likely cannot return and delay would unduly burden proceedings)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1983) (ex parte juror communications implicating presence/counsel rights are subject to harmless-error review)
- People v. Ayala, 24 Cal.4th 243 (Cal. 2000) (excluding defendant and counsel from a Wheeler/Batson-type hearing may violate due process; prejudice analysis required)
- People v. Kelly, 42 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2007) (defendant’s absence from legal conferences does not always violate right to presence when counsel is present and defendant’s presence would not aid fairness)
- People v. Dell, 232 Cal.App.3d 248 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (juror substitution not always a critical stage where good cause for removal is clear)
- People v. Abbaszadeh, 106 Cal.App.4th 642 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (futility exception to forfeiture where objection would have been futile)