State v. Valentin Calvillo
Background
- Valentin Calvillo was indicted for lewd conduct with a minor and sexual abuse of a child; he pled not guilty and proceeded to trial.
- First trial (2010): Calvillo absconded during trial; jury convicted him in his absence; conviction later affirmed on appeal.
- Post-conviction: State conceded trial counsel ineffective for not presenting witnesses and waiving closing; court vacated the verdict and ordered a new trial.
- Second trial (2016): During voir dire two prospective jurors disclosed (in the panel’s presence) that Calvillo had been incarcerated and that one knew him “until about the time he went missing”; both prospective jurors were immediately excused.
- Calvillo moved for a mistrial claiming those statements prejudiced the entire venire by implying incarceration and flight; the district court denied the motion and the jury convicted on one count of sexual abuse and six counts of lewd conduct.
- On appeal Calvillo argued the voir dire disclosures constituted reversible (structural) error denying his right to an impartial jury; the court affirmed, applying established reversible-error review and finding no prejudice requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror statements during voir dire that defendant had been incarcerated or “went missing” required a mistrial | Calvillo: statements infected venire, constituted structural error depriving him of impartial jury; automatic reversal required | State: Calvillo failed to show juror bias or continuing prejudicial effect; any error was harmless | Denied. Statements did not amount to reversible or structural error; no showing of continuing prejudice or bias. |
| Proper standard of review for denial of mistrial | Calvillo: argues prejudicial voir dire statements should trigger automatic reversal (structural error) | State: existing standard—assess whether incident constituted reversible error in context of full record—is controlling | Court: declined to change standard; applied reversible-error context-based review rather than automatic reversal. |
| Whether immediate responses (excusing jurors, jury instructions) cured any prejudice | Calvillo: these measures insufficient because statement exposure already tainted panel | State: prompt excusal, preliminary instruction, juror assurances, absence of follow-up evidence cured any effect | Held: remedial measures and record (jury questions, acquittal on one count) support that no lasting prejudice occurred. |
| Whether comment about incarceration is inherently prejudicial | Calvillo: implied guilt; unavoidable prejudice | State: not necessarily devastating; jury heard evidence about police taking defendant away; comment not outcome-determinative | Held: incarceration remark not devastating and did not have continuing impact on trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (harmless-error framework for most constitutional violations)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (Chapman harmless-error burden-shifting test)
- State v. Urquhart, 105 Idaho 92, 665 P.2d 1102 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial; focus on continuing impact)
- State v. Hill, 140 Idaho 625, 97 P.3d 1014 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004) (incarceration comment during trial not necessarily devastating)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (definition and consequences of structural error)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (standard for prejudice and harmless-error inquiry)
- Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1986) (structural errors infect entire trial and require automatic reversal)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (example of structural error requiring automatic reversal)