Opinion ID: 2675341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Sever from Codefendant Hawkins

Text: Defendant alternatively moved for severance from Hawkins, claiming denial of the motion would have an adverse impact on the ability of defendant’s counsel to investigate and prepare the penalty phase. He contended his relatives on his father’s side of the family, who were related to Hawkins, appeared to be supporting Hawkins in their family feud and were unwilling to be interviewed by defendant’s counsel. In renewing this argument on appeal, defendant contends being jointly tried with Hawkins affected his ability to present evidence on his behalf at the guilt and penalty phases. Neither defendant’s father nor anyone from that side of defendant’s family testified on defendant’s behalf at the guilt or penalty phases, and defendant’s father did not testify at the guilt phase in response to George’s testimony that defendant admitted he was the killer in front of defendant’s father. Defendant points out that, during closing argument at the guilt and penalty phases, the prosecutor mentioned defendant’s father did not testify, and then argued the jury could infer from the defense’s failure to call him that his testimony would have been adverse to defendant’s position. Defendant contends it is “reasonably possible” that if this severance motion had been granted, his father would have presented testimony disputing George’s account, and that would have precluded the prosecutor’s damaging argument. 25 We reject defendant’s claim that denial of a severance motion should be analyzed under the state law standard for errors at the penalty phase, namely, whether there is a “reasonable possibility” the error affected the penalty verdict. (People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 447.) Instead, defendant must show joinder actually resulted in “gross unfairness,” amounting to a denial of due process. (People v. Johnson, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 590.) In any event, defendant merely speculates that his father would have contradicted George’s account at a trial had he and Hawkins not been tried together. Equally speculative are defendant’s arguments that paternal relatives would have presented unspecified favorable evidence at his penalty phase had his trial been severed from Hawkins’s. Defendant fails to show the denial of his severance motion resulted in gross unfairness amounting to a denial of due process. (Ibid.) D. Failure to Take a Blood Sample Defendant moved under California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 (Trombetta) to dismiss the case, or, in the alternative, to have the trial court give an ameliorative instruction, because the police did not take a blood sample when they arrested him. Here, as he did below, defendant argues a blood sample might have shown a high level of methamphetamine in his system and that such evidence could have been used to mount an affirmative defense of intoxication at the guilt phase or as mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. We conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss and the request for an ameliorative instruction, and that defendant’s due process rights were not violated. At a hearing on the motion, the two officers who initially arrested defendant testified to the following: They arrested defendant about 6:00 p.m. on August 28, nearly 24 hours from the time the Corona Police Department received the call about a murder in progress. At the time of his arrest, defendant was speaking so 26 quickly Detective Anderson had to tell him to slow down so he could be understood. Detective Stewart testified defendant exhibited symptoms of “hypertension,” but Stewart attributed defendant’s state to the shock of being caught rather than to drug use. Stewart believed a blood sample could be useful to a defense of intoxication if a person is arrested soon after a crime, but not when, as here, the arrest occurred almost 24 hours later. Karla Sandrin, defendant’s trial counsel, provided a sworn declaration that the prosecutor informed her defendant had been “flying” when the prosecutor interviewed him after his arrest. The trial court denied the Trombetta motion, ruling the police were under no obligation to collect evidence in the case, and that the testimony revealed the officers did not believe defendant was under the influence of a narcotic at the time of his arrest. The federal constitutional guarantee of due process imposes a duty on the state to preserve “evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense.” (Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 488.) In other words, that evidence “must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.” (Id., at p. 489.) Generally, due process does not require the police to collect particular items of evidence. (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 943.) “The police cannot be expected to ‘gather up everything which might eventually prove useful to the defense.’ ” (People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 851.) A trial court’s ruling on a Trombetta motion is upheld on appeal if a reviewing court finds substantial evidence supporting the ruling. (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 831.) This is not a case where evidence initially gathered was destroyed. The issue here is the asserted failure of the police to collect relevant exculpatory evidence. Although we have suggested that cases may arise in which the failure to collect 27 evidence could justify sanctions against the prosecution at trial, the failure to collect blood sample from defendant at the time of his arrest but almost 24 hours after the crime is not such a case. (People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 943 [no duty to collect bloody slipper for blood typing].) In any event, defendant’s claim would fail even if Trombetta and its progeny apply to a claim of a failure to collect evidence. “Trombetta speaks of evidence whose exculpatory value is ‘apparent.’ ” (Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51, 56, fn. .) Here, the testimony indicated the officers did not believe defendant was under the influence of drugs when arrested. The testimony also failed to establish an apparent exculpatory connection between the possible presence of a narcotic in a defendant’s blood when he was arrested and his level of intoxication, if any, when the murder was committed nearly 24 hours earlier. Defendant’s failure to show the apparent exculpatory value of a blood sample at the time of his arrest also bears on the issue of whether the police acted in bad faith. “[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” (Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, 488 U.S. at p. 58.) Because “[t]he presence or absence of bad faith by the police . . . must necessarily turn on the police’s knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed” (Id. at pp. 56-57, fn. ), defendant has failed to establish bad faith in this case. We conclude substantial evidence supported the trial court’s denial of the Trombetta motion. 28 E. Stun Belt during Trial Over defendant’s objections, the trial court ordered that he be restrained with a REACT electronic stun belt for the duration of the trial.17 On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the use of the stun belt, and that his constitutional rights were violated by the ruling. We find these contentions meritless. 1. Background On August 29, 1996, before jury selection began, the prosecutor first brought up the issue of defendant’s wearing leg restraints. In support of his request for shackling, the prosecutor cited defendant’s assault on codefendant Gallegos in a holding cell on September 8, 1995, and defendant’s possession of a homemade stabbing device in his cell on July 26, 1996. The prosecutor also mentioned that Varela had attacked and punched defendant in the face at the jail on March 5, 1995. The prosecutor raised as a courtroom security concern the animosity that existed between defendant and Varela because defendant’s implication of Varela led to Varela’s arrest in this case. The trial court declined to order restraints based on the jail incidents because defendant had done nothing in the courtroom to suggest an intent to act violently or to escape. It did request that additional deputies be assigned to the courtroom, and ordered that defendant and the cells in which he was held be searched before he entered the courtroom. The court said it would reconsider its ruling if new security concerns arose. 17“REACT” stands for “Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology.” (People v. Mar (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1201, 1214 (Mar).) A stun belt is worn underneath a prisoner’s clothing, and, if activated by a remote transmitter, can deliver a brief high-voltage electric shock. (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 560, fn. 8.) 29 Less than a month later, the trial court revisited the issue of restraints based on concerns expressed by Deputy Sheriff Kathy Fitzpatrick, a courtroom bailiff. In response, the prosecutor asked the court to order that defendant be restrained by means not visible to the jury, either with a leg brace or an electric stun belt. At a formal hearing on the request, Deputy Fitzpatrick testified she had been a deputy sheriff for 10 years and had been assigned to court services for about a month. Based on incident reports from the jail, she provided details of defendant’s assault on Gallegos and the discovery of the toothbrush with attached razorblades in defendant’s cell. She testified to an incident a week earlier in which a deputy discovered a handmade “shank” in defendant’s one-person cell. Fitzpatrick also expressed security concerns based on her experience with defendant in the courtroom. Fitzpatrick testified the court reporter told her that defendant “watches” her move around the courtroom and “studies” her gun as she moves, and that defendant “looks at” the guns of the other bailiffs when they answer the telephone or move past him. Fitzpatrick began to watch defendant, and noticed he was looking at the gun of a bailiff, Deputy Dennis Young.18 Fitzpatrick explained that defendant was sitting in very close proximity to the desk at which the three court bailiffs would be sitting or standing by, and that he was also close to the court clerk and the judge. She was concerned “about a lunge towards someone or somebody’s weapon.” She believed that “the react belt would be the most appropriate,” because it was her understanding that “with a leg brace . . . he could still make a lunge.” 18 During cross-examination, Deputy Fitzpatrick testified defendant would stare when attractive women came into the courtroom, and it was stipulated Fitzpatrick was an attractive woman. Defendant implies this was the only reason he was watching her. However, defendant fails to address the testimony that he also was observed staring at a male bailiff. 30 Another court bailiff, Deputy Young, testified he believed defendant should be restrained because of the type of crime alleged and the incidents at the jail. Deputy Young had no direct experience with electronic stun belts, but believed a stun belt would be the most effective form of restraint. At the same hearing, Deputy Armando Tapia displayed a REACT electronic stun belt and described how it worked. He was aware of three defendants who previously had worn the belt in Riverside County; in one case, the belt accidentally had been activated. Defense counsel objected to the use of the belt, contending the prosecution had not shown a need for it because defendant always had been cooperative with court staff. Based on his experience with stun belts, counsel expressed concern jurors would notice its bulk under defendant’s clothing and would focus even more attention on defendant, who already stood out as the only defendant facing the death penalty. The court concluded the prosecution had shown a manifest need for the belt based on defendant’s past and current threats, his acts of violence against his codefendants, his actions involving weapons, and his other conduct described at the hearing. It found a real potential that violence would occur, that the restraint was necessary to minimize the likelihood of violence, and that the belt would be unobtrusive and not visible to jurors. It ordered that the belt be used at all of defendant’s future court appearances, but said it would revisit this ruling if additional evidence were presented during trial concerning the need for additional restraints or the inappropriateness of the ordered restraint. During defendant’s motion for new trial after the jury verdicts, defense counsel submitted the transcript of an interview with Alternate Juror No. 3, who eventually sat as a deliberating juror at the penalty phase. One set of questions in the interview had involved court security. When asked by trial counsel whether 31 anything about security in the courtroom attracted his attention, the alternate juror said “it looked like [defendant] was wearing some kind of belt” and that “it looked like” the bailiff seated behind defendant “had a box” “maybe” “with a button.” Alternate Juror No. 3 stated that “still to this day” he did not know what it was, and denied making any reference to these observations during jury deliberations.19 2. Analysis “Under California law, ‘a defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury’s presence, unless there is a showing of a manifest need for such restraints.’ [Citation.] Similarly, the federal ‘Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles . . . unless that use is “justified by an essential state interest” — such as the interest in courtroom security — specific to the defendant on trial.’ [Citation.] We have held that these principles also apply to the use of an electronic ‘stun belt,’ even if this device is not visible to the jury. [Citation.]” (People v. Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 559.) “In deciding whether restraints are justified, the trial court may ‘take into account the factors that courts have traditionally relied on in gauging potential security problems and the risk of escape at trial.’ [Citation.] These factors include evidence establishing that a defendant poses a safety risk, a flight risk, or is likely to disrupt the proceedings or otherwise engage in nonconforming behavior.’ [Citations.] If the record establishes restraints are necessary, a trial court should select the least obtrusive method that will be effective under the circumstances. 19 As discussed, post at pages 105-107, defendant’s new trial motion was based on the claim that Alternate Juror No. 3 committed misconduct by consulting an elder in his church about the church’s views on capital punishment. The subject of this juror’s possible perception that defendant was wearing a stun belt was not raised in the briefing on the motion for new trial or discussed during the related hearing. 32 [Citation.]” (People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 367.) “Although the court need not hold a formal hearing before imposing restraints, ‘the record must show the court based its determination on facts, not rumor and innuendo.’ ” (People v. Lomax, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 559.) “The court’s shackling decision ‘cannot be successfully challenged on review except on a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” (People v. Sheldon (1989) 48 Cal.3d 935, 945.) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the use of a restraint in this case. It held an extensive hearing at which evidence was presented that defendant posed a safety risk based on incidents in jail and based on his studying the guns of the courtroom bailiffs. The court’s finding of a manifest need for some restraint was adequately supported. We next consider defendant’s contention that the trial court did not consider the “least obtrusive or restrictive restraint that effectively [would] serve the specified security purposes.” (Mar, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 1226.) He claims the court should have considered leg shackles instead of a stun belt, and that its failure to do so prejudiced him because fear of being shocked by the belt caused him to restrain himself and appear affectless. Defendant points out that, at the penalty phase, the prosecutor mentioned defendant’s lack of affect and argued to the jury that it showed defendant lacked remorse for his crime. In Mar, we recognized the invisibility of a stun belt does not make it presumptively the best choice of restraint in all situations, and we directed trial courts to also consider the possible psychological impact of a stun belt on a defendant’s participation at trial. (Mar, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 1226-1227.) In that case, the trial court denied the defendant’s request to remove his stun belt when he testified, even though he asserted the belt made him anxious and unable to concentrate. (Id. at p. 1224.) We noted that the impact of the stun belt on the defendant’s demeanor was particularly important because the case largely turned 33 on his credibility. (Ibid.) We concluded the trial court had failed to make a proper finding of manifest need for the stun belt, and that its use constituted prejudicial error because of the relative closeness of the evidence, the importance of the defendant’s demeanor while testifying, and the likelihood the belt had some effect on that demeanor. (Id. at pp. 1222, 1225.) Defendant contends we likewise should find prejudicial error in his case. Our instructions in Mar to trial courts to consider the psychological impact of stun belts operate prospectively only. They therefore do not apply to defendant’s trial, which occurred six years before Mar. (People v. Gamache, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 367, fn. 7.) Furthermore, here, the trial court heard testimony that provided a basis for a finding of manifest need for a stun belt, namely, Deputy Fitzpatrick’s testimony regarding her fear that defendant might lunge for a bailiff’s gun and her belief that leg braces would be less effective in preventing such conduct than a stun belt. Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court did not adequately consider the psychological impact of a stun belt on defendant, this case is distinguishable from Mar because defendant did not testify. Defendant contends the concerns for the psychological impact on a testifying defendant that Mar discussed are relevant to him because “a capital defendant’s demeanor is crucial to the jury’s penalty determination even if the defendant never takes the stand to testify.” However, his attempt to attribute his purportedly affectless facial expression to wearing the stun belt fails. It is not self-evident that a defendant’s fear or concern about being shocked by the stun belt would cause a defendant to have an affectless expression, and the defense never stated or suggested that the threat of electric shock affected defendant’s mental state. Even assuming it could have such an effect, defendant acknowledges that he showed emotion during trial when his mother testified at the penalty phase. His ability to show emotion on that 34 occasion undercuts his argument that the mere presence of the stun belt prevented him from showing any emotion during other portions of the trial. On the issue of prejudice, defendant next contends his constitutional rights were violated because at least one juror noticed the stun belt. However, Alternate Juror No. 3 expressed only suspicions about the presence of a belt, rather than a firm conviction, and he stated that he never shared his suspicions about the belt with his fellow jurors. Defendant fails to establish prejudice on this record. Finally, defendant claims that, even if evidence supported the use of the stun belt during the guilt phase, the situation had changed by the penalty phase. He contends the trial court should have revisited the issue and ordered the belt removed once his codefendants were no longer present, especially in light of how crucial defendant’s demeanor was during the penalty phase. Defendant presents no authority that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to revisit the issue of restraints. If defendant believed the circumstances supporting use of the belt had changed at the penalty phase, he should have so advised the trial court. Because he did not, he has forfeited this claim. (People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 289.) Defendant contends he should be excused for not raising the issue at the penalty phase because the court’s ruling on restraints made reraising the issue futile. However, because the trial court expressly had indicated its willingness to revisit its ruling on restraints in light of any new developments, we conclude defense counsel was not excused from having to renew the issue at the penalty phase in order to preserve it for appeal.