The People v. McCoy
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- McCoy assaulted Cindy H., causing quadriplegia; Cindy H. testified via a conditional two‑way video at a preliminary hearing because of illness; Cindy H. testified at trial by video when unavailable; the information was amended after the conditional examination to add a one‑strike torture allegation; the jury acquitted on count 1 (attempted murder) and could not reach verdict on the related counts; the trial court later sentenced McCoy to prison with Counts 2–4 and the 667.61 enhancements, and this appeal followed seeking various reliefs.
- The conditional examination was authorized under Sections 1335–1345, with video conferencing allowed when a witness is unavailable; the magistrate set up a system where Cindy H. could be seen and heard, but McCoy was not shown on camera during her testimony.
- Amendment of the information to add the one‑strike torture enhancement to count 4 was challenged as violating due process and confrontation rights, but the court held the amendment was permissible due to transactional relationship and prior evidence.
- The court addressed a series of Marsden motions challenging counsel and seeking substitution, ultimately denying substitution and denying post‑trial relief.
- The appellate court remanded for resentencing on Counts 2 and 3 to correct an unauthorized absence of sentence and to reflect that the 667.61(d)(3) sentence was not stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation rights at conditional examination | McCoy: lack of face‑to‑face confrontation | Video prevented face‑to‑face confrontation; later cross‑examination was impeded | No reversible error; forfeiture and lack of objecting on these grounds |
| Amendment of information after conditional exam | Amendment timely and connected to evidence from preliminary hearing | Amendment violated due process and confrontation rights | No due process or confrontation violation; amendment permissible under Mendella/1009 framework |
| Denial of continuance rather than mistrial | Continuance needed to accommodate new testimony | Court should have discharged jury/mistrial upon delay | No abuse of discretion; continuance appropriately denied |
| Admission of prior domestic violence evidence | Evidence probative of propensity and pattern, admissible under 1109(e) | More than 10 years old; prejudicial | Admissible under 1109(e) after balancing; probative value outweighs prejudice |
| Instructional error on unlawful sexual penetration | CALCRIM 1045 correctly states required mental state | CALCRIM 1045/instruction misstates specific vs general intent | CALCRIM 1045 correct; no miscarriage of justice; substantial evidence supports finding |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jurado, 38 Cal.4th 72 (Cal. 2006) (conditional examination; framework for admissibility when witness unavailable)
- People v. Frank, 132 Cal.App.3d 360 (Cal. App. 1983) (order shortening time for conditional exam; admissibility despite short notice)
- People v. Zapien, 4 Cal.4th 929 (Cal. 1992) (availability of former testimony; confrontation concerns weigh against due process)
- People v. Jones, 25 Cal.4th 98 (Cal. 2001) (torture—timing relation to sex offense; causation and sentencing impact)