Source: https://1lawyers.org/the-people-v-keith-ryan-reese/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:16:23+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEITH RYAN REESE, Defendant and Appellant.
The federal Constitution’s equal protection clause compels the government to provide indigent criminal defendants, free of charge, with basic tools for an adequate defense that are available for a price to other defendants. (Britt v. North Carolina (1971) 404 U.S. 226, 227 (Britt).) Both this court and the United States Supreme Court have long held that one such tool is access to a transcript of prior proceedings. (Ibid; People v. Hosner (1975) 15 Cal.3d 60 (Hosner).) In Hosner, we held that an indigent criminal defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a “full” and “complete” transcript of the prior proceedings. (Hosner, at pp. 65, italics omitted.) We granted review in this case to consider the Court of Appeal’s holding below that Hosner’s presumption applies only to transcripts of witness testimony and not to transcripts of opening statements and closing arguments.
We hold that we meant what we said in Hosner: An indigent defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a “full” and “complete” trial transcript ––and this entitlement extends to counsel’s statements. The trial court and Court of Appeal therefore erred when they required defendant to demonstrate why a transcript of the statements was necessary for his defense. But we nevertheless affirm the judgment of conviction, because we also find the error here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant Keith Ryan Reese is an indigent pro se defendant. He was charged with making criminal threats (Penal Code § 422, subd. (a))1 , possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), use of a firearm in the commission of making criminal threats (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). On April 11, 2013, a jury deadlocked on the charges after a five-day trial, and the court declared a mistrial. The court set the retrial for June 6, 2013.
At a pretrial hearing on April 26, the court granted defendant’s motion for a “complete record of trial transcripts.” The court continued the retrial date to June 10. On June 6, the defendant received a transcript that included all witness testimony from the first trial, but omitted the opening statements and closing arguments. Before trial commenced on June 10, defendant argued that he did not receive the “full set of transcripts which I am entitled to.” The trial court responded that it had ordered “all the testimony” and that defendant was “entitled only to the testimony given.” Defendant argued that he was “required” to have transcripts of the opening statements and closing arguments so that he “won’t make the same mistakes,” given that he had a “small amount of time to study a lot.” Without hearing from the prosecution, the trial court denied the request and the defendant’s motion for a continuance. After a three-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to an aggregate sentence of 17 years in state prison.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeal rejected defendant’s challenge to the denial of his request for a transcript of the opening statements and closing arguments. The majority recognized that a defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a transcript of the first trial, but held that the presumption applies only to witness testimony. The majority reasoned that a defendant is required to demonstrate a need for other portions of the trial transcript, including opening statements and closing arguments. Concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate any such need, the majority affirmed the convictions.2 By contrast, the dissent argued that Hosner’s presumption applied to counsel’s statements as well as witness testimony. Because the prosecution did nothing to rebut Hosner’s presumption, the dissent found federal constitutional error.
We granted defendant’s petition for review to determine whether the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it denied his request for a transcript of the opening statements and closing arguments from his first trial.
Given the scope of the equal protection principles we articulated in Shuford and Hosner, we need look no further than those cases to decide whether the trial court violated defendant’s equal protection rights in this case. Before the start of the retrial, defendant requested the entire transcript of his first trial — including the opening and closing statements. Because defendant had the benefit of Hosner’s presumption, he was entitled to a full and complete transcript of his first trial unless the prosecution “ ‘clearly establish[ed] the contrary.’ ” (Hosner, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 69, quoting People v. Jones (1944) 24 Cal.2d 601, 609.) Here — as the People concede — the prosecution made no showing whatsoever that defendant could muster an adequate defense without access to a transcript of the opening and closing statements from his first trial. In fact, the trial court denied the request despite the prosecution never addressing defendant’s request. The trial court erred in doing so because the prosecution had done nothing to rebut the presumption that defendant had a right to nothing less than a full and complete transcript of his first trial.
The considerable importance of counsel’s statements does not imply, however, an equivalence for all purposes between such statements and evidence. The prosecution remains free, of course, to reference these distinctions when attempting to carry its burden of establishing that anything other than a full and complete transcript (including opening statements and closing arguments) suffices to guarantee the defendant an adequate defense. We simply hold here that any differences between a transcript of witness testimony and that of counsels’ statements do not justify exempting opening statements and closing arguments from Hosner’s presumption of entitlement. The Court of Appeal erred when it held otherwise.
Having found federal constitutional error, we must decide if it requires reversal of defendant’s conviction. Most federal constitutional errors are subject to harmless error review under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). (Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. 212, 218.) Not so for those federal constitutional errors deemed “structural,” which require automatic reversal without a demonstration of harm to the defendant. (Ibid.) In Hosner, we held that the erroneous denial of an indigent defendant’s motion for a transcript of a prior trial was indeed structural error that required automatic reversal. (Hosner, 15 Cal.3d at p. 70.) Defendant argues that this holding requires us to reverse the conviction here regardless of harmless error, while the People argue that Hosner’s harmless error holding should be reexamined or, at a minimum, confined to a total denial of the right to a previous trial transcript.
Although the question whether a constitutional violation is structural or trial error is generally thought to be categorical, the harmless error status of certain constitutional violations is neither binary nor fixed. Certain errors can shift between being structural or subject to harmless error review depending on the nature and extent of the violation. An especially apt example is the right to counsel, as Hosner explicitly connected the right to previous trial transcripts and the right to counsel in its discussion of whether harmless error review was possible. (Hosner, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 70.) There can be no question, of course, that the complete absence of counsel is structural error. (See Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 23, fn. 8, citing Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335.) Notwithstanding this fact, the high court has held that the absence of counsel at a critical stage of trial can be subject to harmless error review. (See Coleman v. Alabama (1970) 399 U.S. 1, 10-11 [counsel’s absence at preliminary hearing subject to harmless error review, in a case where state law prohibited prosecution from using anything from preliminary hearing at trial].) Similarly, we have applied harmless error analysis to the temporary absence of counsel during trial. (See People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 269 [applying Chapman to erroneous exclusion of counsel during portion of hearing conducted pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79]; People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 848-850 [applying Chapman where trial court responded to jury inquiry without consulting defense counsel], disapproved on another ground in People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 836.) Various other courts have done the same. (See, e.g., Key v. People (Colo. 1994) 865 P.2d 822, 826-827 [applying harmless error review to defense attorney’s absence for scheduling conference with jurors during deliberations]; U.S. v. Toliver (3rd Cir. 2003) 330 F.3d 607, 615 [trial court responds to jury inquiry without consulting with defense counsel]; Vines v. U.S. (11th Cir. 1994) 28 F.3d 1123, 1129 [attorney briefly absent during witness testimony].)4 So what matters in determining whether certain violations of law in the adjudicatory process are fully structural or subject to appropriate harmless error review is not only the fact an error occurred, but the nature and extent of it.
What does not follow from this conclusion is that the erroneous withholding of any portion of a previous trial transcript is automatically structural error. On this issue, the Ninth Circuit held that the partial denial of the right to a previous trial transcript is subject to harmless error review, and suggested that the total denial of the same right would be structural error. (See Kennedy v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2004) 379 F.3d 1041, 1053.) We agree. The wrongful withholding of part of a previous transcript does not affect the “entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end” and thus defy harmless error review. (Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. at p. 309.) Rather, when the denial of the right to a previous trial transcript is less than total, appellate courts will often have little difficulty conducting harmless error review. If the missing portions of the transcript cover witness testimony, a court can consider whether the defense was unable to counter that testimony at the retrial (for example by impeaching the witness or witnesses on discrepancies between the testimony offered at each trial). Similarly, if the portion missing is, as in this case, counsel’s statements, a court can determine whether the record indicates that the defense attorney failed to anticipate the prosecution’s overall theory or its argument as to a specific dispute. What we therefore conclude is that where a defendant is erroneously denied all — or, as in Hosner, practically all — of the previous trial transcript, the error is structural. But where a defendant is wrongly denied only portions of the previous trial transcript, the error is amenable to harmless error review.
In this case, our review of the record convinces us that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The People charged defendant with making criminal threats, possession of a firearm by a felon, and assault with a firearm. The charges arose out of an incident at the home of defendant’s mother. The prosecution alleged that defendant’s mother called 911 and, once officers arrived, defendant’s mother, uncle, and girlfriend all stated that defendant had threatened his mother and girlfriend with a firearm. Both of defendant’s trials revolved around two key disputes. First, the three witnesses from the scene all recanted substantial portions of their earlier statements during their trial testimony. Second, the officers recovered a holster in the mother’s apartment but did not find any firearm despite searching with a gun-sniffing dog.
Several factors underscore why the error did not contribute to the verdict. The prosecution’s case was straightforward and quite similar at the two trials. During his opening statement and closing argument at the first trial, the prosecutor argued that the witnesses recanted to protect defendant and that defendant had hidden the firearm. Defendant, by contrast, argued that the officers had lied about the witnesses’ allegations at the scene and that there had never been a gun at all. The People’s case during the retrial was not meaningfully different. The prosecutor’s opening statement at the second trial previewed an identical theory of the case and explanation for the discrepancy between the witnesses’ statements at the scene and on the stand. Each witness again disputed that defendant had threatened his mother and girlfriend at the scene. During closing argument, the prosecutor argued once more that the witnesses had recanted their statements to protect defendant and that defendant had hidden the gun while officers spoke with the witnesses outside the home.
Moreover, the retrial took place just two months after the initial trial, and defendant represented himself both times. There is no indication that defendant failed to anticipate the prosecutor’s arguments, or that the constitutional violation otherwise prejudiced his defense. Throughout the retrial, defendant drew out testimony regarding the two central issues in the case: the missing firearm, and the discrepancies between the witnesses’ statements. Simply put, nothing in the record suggests that defendant’s lack of access to the statement transcripts left him unaware of the prosecutor’s theory or the central disputes in the case.
Defendant argues that a full transcript would have left him better able to respond to the government’s contention that he hid the gun, and he points to two moments from the second trial as examples of his claimed disadvantage. Our review of the record persuades us, however, that the withholding of the full transcript from the first trial did not prejudice the defense at either moment. First, defendant points to his attempts to compel the presence at trial of Officer Ramirez, who had handled the gun-sniffing dog at the scene. Prior to trial, defendant attempted to compel the presence of Officer Ramirez at trial to help establish that there was never any gun at the scene. The officer was on vacation, however, and the trial court declined to continue the case until his return. Defendant argues that he would have been able to persuade the trial court to continue the case if he had possessed a transcript of the statements from the previous trial. But it is difficult to see what extra force the missing transcript portions would have added to defendant’s argument. It is clear that defendant did not need the statement transcripts to understand the significance of Officer Ramirez’s potential testimony, as he argued to the trial court that the testimony would establish that there was “nowhere to hide” a gun in the mother’s “very small apartment.” Nor is there a reasonable probability that the trial court would have been more likely to grant the continuance had defendant pointed to those moments during the prosecution’s arguments when it referenced the hidden gun.
Second, defendant points to his cross-examination of Officer Azarte, who supervised the witnesses outside the apartment. Defendant argues that he would have more effectively cross-examined Officer Azarte regarding the missing gun had he possessed a full transcript, but once again it is difficult to see how the defense was prejudiced. As defendant’s argument for a continuance proves, he was aware before trial commenced that the existence of the gun would be an important issue. Officer Azarte’s direct testimony only further underscored this point, as he testified that the responding officers searched for the gun for “between twenty [or] thirty minutes” without finding it. In fact, defendant cross-examined Officer Azarte at length regarding the abilities of gun-sniffing dogs, which proves that defendant did not need the transcripts of the statements from the previous trial to understand the salience of this issue. There is simply no indication that the missing transcript portions left him unable to develop through Officer Azarte his theory about the existence of a gun.
A defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a full transcript of the previous trial –– including opening and closing statements. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion to the contrary ignores that transcripts of counsel’s statements can be critical to an indigent defendant’s ability to mount a defense similar to that available to a wealthy defendant. What a defendant is not entitled to receive, however, is automatic reversal for the partial denial of the right to a previous trial transcript. Instead, when — as happened here — defendant is denied only a portion of the transcript, the harmless error rule applies. Because we find the error harmless in this case, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
1. All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
2. The Court of Appeal did stay defendant’s sentence for some of the counts to avoid violating section 654’s prohibition on double punishment.
4. We express no opinion on the specific outcomes in those cases but cite them only for the proposition that the absence of counsel can, in some circumstances, be subject to harmless error review.
WE CONCUR: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. WERDEGAR, J. CHIN, J. CORRIGAN, J. LIU, J. KRUGER, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 422
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.