Filed 11/22/21 P. v. Medina CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL MEDINA, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B310334

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KA124873)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.

Kathleen Caverly and Olivia Meme, under appointment by 

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

Defendant Paul Medina also known as Paul Medina, Jr. 

appeals from a judgment of conviction. He argues the trial court 

erred in allowing witnesses to testify against him while wearing 

masks that covered their noses and mouths. Defendant 

recognizes that “mitigating concerns about the COVID-19 

pandemic [are] indisputably an important public policy interest,” 

but nevertheless contends that the masks violated his

constitutional right to confront these witnesses. 

We need not address the constitutional issue because even 

if arguendo requiring the witnesses to wear masks was error, the 

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence 

against defendant at trial was overwhelming. An eyewitness 

observed defendant enter and leave a storage facility; catalytic 

converters were stolen from vehicles in that facility; and a short 

time after the theft, police officers caught defendant with the 

catalytic converters,1 a saw used to cut the catalytic converters 

off vehicles, and a hydraulic press used to access those catalytic 

converters. There was also a video of defendant and his 

confederate entering and leaving the storage facility. Defendant 

presented no evidence at trial and there was no conflicting 

evidence regarding the theft. Under these circumstances, any 

error in allowing witnesses to testify while wearing masks over 

their noses and mouths was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s judgment of conviction.

1 A catalytic converter part of a vehicle’s exhaust system 

that helps reduce emissions.
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People charged defendant with one count of grand 

theft. The People alleged that defendant suffered a prior robbery 

conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. A jury 

convicted defendant of grand theft. In addition to sentencing him 

for grand theft, the trial court sentenced defendant for the prior 

robbery conviction after defendant violated probation for that 

conviction. 

1. Prior robbery plea and probation violation

In 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of 

robbery committed on April 29, 2019. The court suspended 

sentence and placed defendant on formal probation.

At a concurrent probation revocation hearing on the 

robbery conviction and preliminary hearing on the grand theft 

charge, the trial court determined defendant violated his 

probation and revoked the probation. The court postponed 

sentencing defendant for the robbery until after his trial on the 

grand theft charge.

2. Grand theft

a. Evidence at trial

On June 24, 2020, defendant was the passenger in a silver 

BMW SUV. The BMW’s driver parked near a storage facility 

called Rest Your Case. Rest Your Case stored vehicles on the 

property. The business was surrounded by a wall and fence. 

Defendant did not have authority to enter the storage facility or 

remove any parts from the vehicles.

Jesse B., who lived near the storage facility, observed 

defendant and his confederate jump over the fence at the storage 
4

facility. The confederate was carrying a green backpack.

Jesse B. called the police. Jesse B. could not see defendant while 

defendant was inside the storage facility. Jesse B., however, 

observed defendant and his confederate leave the storage facility 

and return to the BMW SUV, carrying the green backpack and a 

cardboard box. The green backpack appeared to have items in it 

that were not in the backpack when Jesse B. initially observed 

the two men. Jesse B. called the police department a second 

time. Jesse B. identified defendant in a show-up the night of the 

incident. The field show-up involved officers asking Jesse B. if 

defendant was the person Jesse B. saw committing the crime. 

Jesse B. could not identify defendant at trial. 

A surveillance video played for the jury showed two persons 

jumping over the fence to enter and leave the storage facility. 

The two persons were carrying several items when they left the 

storage facility and one assisted the other in lifting the items over 

the wall at the perimeter of the property. Pictures admitted into 

evidence showed a green backpack containing three catalytic 

converters and the position of the green backpack in the BMW 

SUV in which defendant was a passenger.

Lieutenant Thomas Avila observed the BMW SUV while 

defendant and his confederate were inside the storage facility. 

Lieutenant Avila observed two males enter the BMW. Avila 

identified defendant as one of the men. Defendant’s confederate 

placed a green backpack in the back of the vehicle. 

Corporal Billy Johnson stopped the BMW after Avila 

observed defendant and his confederate enter it. Inside the 

BMW, defendant and his confederate had a saw, that was warm, 

indicating recent usage. They also had three catalytic converters 

inside a green backpack. Johnson found a hydraulic jack under 
5

the passenger floorboard. Johnson explained that a hydraulic 

jack may be used to lift a vehicle so its underside can be easily 

accessed. Johnson identified defendant as the passenger of the 

silver BMW SUV.

A search of the storage facility revealed that three catalytic 

converters were missing. It was undisputed that the cost of the 

three catalytic converters totaled over $3,000. 

At trial, no witness testified for the defense. 

b. Verdict and sentence

The jury found defendant guilty of one count of grand theft 

for taking property exceeding $950. Defendant represented 

himself at sentencing. The court sentenced defendant to eight

months in state prison for the grand theft consecutive to three 

years for the robbery conviction. Defendant timely appealed from 

the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Trial occurred in October 2020, during a global pandemic. 

At the beginning of trial, citing the Confrontation Clause, 

defendant requested that all witnesses remove their masks while 

testifying. The trial court denied defendant’s request. On 

appeal, defendant argues this violated his constitutional right to 

confront mask-wearing witnesses. Defendant argues that he 

suffered prejudice because the prosecution’s case rested on 

circumstantial evidence and the masks hindered the jurors’ 

ability to assess each witness’s credibility.

“We review violations of the confrontation clause for 

harmless error using the Chapman[2] standard. [Citation.] 

2 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18. 
6

‘A violation of the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation right 

requires reversal of the judgment against a criminal defendant 

unless the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that 

the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ [Citation.]

‘ “ ‘To say that an error did not contribute to the ensuing verdict 

is . . . to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else 

the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the 

record.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Garcia (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 

123, 178–179.) Assuming without deciding that allowing the 

witnesses to wear masks over their nose and mouths violated 

defendant’s right to confrontation, this assumed error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Two men entered Rest Your Case (the storage facility), 

without the owner’s consent and removed three catalytic 

converters from vehicles stored there. Two eyewitnesses—

Jesse B. and Johnson—identified defendant as one of those men

and defendant presented no contrary evidence. Officers 

apprehended defendant in a BMW shortly after the incident and 

found a saw still warm indicating recent use, a hydraulic press, 

and a green backpack containing three catalytic converters in the 

BMW. The green backpack was the same one Jesse B. testified 

he saw two men carry into the storage facility. A video played for 

the jury showed two men jumping over the fence at the storage 

facility, confirming Jesse B.’s testimony.

3

Defendant correctly points out that Corporal Johnson 

testified his trainee did not write a detailed police report

describing the incident. Johnson would have “articulate[d] a 

3 The resolution of the video is not sufficiently clear to see 

the faces of the two men who enter the storage facility. 
7

little bit more witness statements, victim statements. I

[Johnson] would probably be personally more detailed on the 

evidence that was located.” Defendant points to no prejudice 

stemming from the absence of a detailed police report. The fact 

that the report could have been written better, standing alone, 

does not demonstrate prejudice from the witnesses wearing 

masks covering their noses and mouths. At trial, the police 

report was not a substitute for witness statements because the 

percipient witnesses and the owner of the storage facility 

testified, the latter making clear that defendant lacked authority 

to enter the facility. Also, as the Attorney General points out, the 

jury did not have to resolve conflicting witness testimony because 

there was none. For all these reasons, any purported 

constitutional error in requiring all witnesses to wear masks over 

their mouths and noses while testifying was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. CRANDALL, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.