Opinion ID: 4118870
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attendance of Family Members at Trial

Text: Before addressing the substance of this evidence, defendant claims the court erred in permitting Beeson‘s sister and mother to both attend the guilt phase and testify as victim impact witnesses. Defense counsel observed these family members silently crying at points during the trial and argued they should be excluded from the courtroom. The court denied the request, noting that it had paid close attention to the audience and had observed nothing remotely prejudicial. There had been no outbursts or vocal demonstrations, nor any other violations of courtroom decorum. This ruling was an appropriate exercise of the court‘s discretion. Immediate family members of a murder victim have the right to attend trial subject to ―overriding interests,‖ such as the defendant‘s right to a fair trial. (§ 1102.6, subds. (b)(1), (c).) A spectator‘s behavior is grounds for reversal only if it is ― ‗of such a character as to prejudice the defendant or influence the verdict,‘ ‖ and the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether spectator conduct is prejudicial. (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1215; People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006, 1022.) We found no error in Myles when a murder victim‘s wife nodded in agreement with prosecution witnesses, cried openly in court, and was consoled by support persons. (Myles, at pp. 1215-1216.) The modest displays of emotion here were even less likely to prejudice defendant‘s right to a fair trial. The trial court closely observed the proceedings and was in the best position to evaluate the impact of family members‘ conduct on the jury. (See ibid.) We defer to its informed conclusion that silent tears from Beeson‘s mother and sister were not prejudicial. Nor is there merit to defendant‘s unsupported claim that family members who observe the guilt phase of trial may not testify as victim impact witnesses. His proposal would severely curtail family members‘ statutory right to attend trial and the scope of permissible victim impact evidence. Preserving a fair trial for the 64 defendant does not require such an extreme limitation on the court‘s discretion and the universe of victim impact evidence.