Opinion ID: 2551468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Counsel's Absence While Certain Testimony Was Reread

Text: Defendant asserts that he was denied constitutional rights and rights under the Penal Codenamely to be present during trial, to be assisted by counsel during a critical stage of the trial, and to a public trialwhen counsel decided not to be present during the rereading of certain testimony, the testimony was reread in the jury's deliberation room rather than in open court, and the jury interrupted the court reporter before she had completed reading all the testimony requested. He cites the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, article I, section 15, of the California Constitution, and Penal Code sections 977 and 1043. During deliberations the jury asked for the testimony of Juan Manuel Meza and Miguel Angel Lopez. Defense counsel decided, because the jury wanted to review so much testimony and was making its request so early in the deliberations, not to be present during any rereading of the two witnesses' testimony unless the jury was seeking only excerpts. The trial court estimated that to reread all of Meza's and Lopez's testimony would require about 11 hours. The trial court said it would direct the reporter to read back the testimony, but not the full content of the transcripts, which contained sidebar conferences, questions to which objections were sustained, and the like. It said that it would review the transcripts with the reporter in advance to make sure this was done. The jury thereafter decided that it only wanted to hear Meza's testimony, a process that the prosecutor estimated would take seven and one-half hours. The trial court said it would have the testimony read in the courtroom if counsel desired to be present, but otherwise in the jury room. Defense counsel and defendant agreed to waive their right to be present, and to let the jurors hear the readback in the room in which they were deliberating. The record next shows the trial court's announcing that the jury had reached a verdict. The court also read a note from the foreperson informing the court that the jury had asked the court reporter to stop reading Meza's testimony in the midst of defendant's cross-examination. Defense counsel expressed concern that the jury had not had all of Meza's testimony reread, and the court commented that neither it nor any court, to my knowledge, can direct a jury as to how to conduct their deliberations. Pursuant to section 1138, the jury has a right to rehear testimony and instructions on request during its deliberations. [Citations.] Although the primary concern of section 1138 is the jury's right to be apprised of the evidence, a violation of the statutory mandate implicates a defendant's right to a fair trial conducted `substantially [in] accord[ance] with law.' ( People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 1007, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 959 P.2d 183.) We have repeatedly rejected the claims defendant raises here. The rereading of testimony is not a critical stage of the proceedings ( People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1120, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478 [by necessary implication]), and defendant waived his right to be present in any event. [8] His claim is without merit. (See also People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 836-837, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249 [absent a showing of an unfair trial, absence during rereading of testimony does not offend due process].) And because defendant waived any right he might have had to a public trial during the rereading, he cannot now complain that he was denied that righthe invited any error. (See People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1028, 264 Cal.Rptr. 386, 782 P.2d 627.) We also reject defendant's claim that counsel's decision to waive any right to be present during the rereading constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Even if such a right were established, defendant could not show prejudice. First, `It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed....' (Evid. Code, § 664.) This presumption applies to .... court reporters.... ( People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 661, 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 788, 854 P.2d 80.) Therefore we assume the reporter properly read the testimony until stopped by the jury. And even if counsel had been present and demanded that the reporter continue to reread the testimony, defendant could not have compelled the trial court to order the jury to continue to listen to the rereading of testimony once it was satisfied it had heard enough. Defendant concedes as much, and he is correct. ( People v. Gordon (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 687, 689, 35 Cal.Rptr. 335; People v. Cathey (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 217, 221-222, 8 Cal.Rptr. 694; People v. Smith (1906) 3 Cal.App. 62, 67-68, 84 P. 449.)