Court Opinion

ID: 9375064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 20:02:51.879392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.596035
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/24/23 P. v. Valtierra CA1/5

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur-
poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
            Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                               A165832
 HILEBERTO VALTIERRA,
            Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                  (Fresno County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. F19908265)

      Hileberto Valtierra appeals after a jury convicted him of
one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a);
count one),1 one count of second degree attempted murder
(§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count two), and three counts of assault
with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts three, four, and five).
The jury also found true the charged firearm enhancements—
that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing
great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) in committing
counts one and two and that he personally used a firearm
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in committing counts three through five.
After the trial court found true allegations that Valtierra suffered
two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds.

      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
        1

This matter was transferred by California Supreme Court order
on August 9, 2022 from the Fifth Appellate District (No.
F081769) to the First Appellate District.
                                                1
(a)-(d)), Valtierra was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term
of 200 years to life plus a determinate term of 30 years.

      Valtierra raises several arguments—that the trial court
violated his constitutional rights to a public trial, to represent
himself, and to confront the witnesses against him. He also
contends the trial court improperly limited the scope of his cross-
examination of a prosecution witness. We conclude Valtierra’s
arguments are without merit and affirm.

                          BACKGROUND

                                A.

       In December of 2019, Valtierra and his girlfriend (Leticia
R.) argued about her daughter P.T.’s alleged gang membership.
Leticia decided to end their relationship and began moving out of
the San Joaquin apartment she had been sharing with Valtierra’s
sister. While Leticia’s brother and three of her children (P.T.,
A.T., and E.T.) helped load Leticia’s possessions, Valtierra
repeatedly insulted Leticia using profanity and gang slurs.

      Sixteen-year-old A.T. told Valtierra to be respectful and the
two engaged in a verbal argument. E.T. got out of Leticia’s
brother’s truck, ran towards Valtierra, and the two physically
fought—punching and wrestling each other on the ground.
Members of both Leticia’s and Valtierra’s families crowded
around the fight.

       The prosecution evidence is in conflict in some respects—
about whether A.T. kicked Valtierra in the head, who was
winning the fight, and whether the fight was over when shots
were fired. However, the prosecution witnesses agreed that
neither Leticia nor any of her family members (her brother, A.T.,
E.T., or P.T.) had a gun that night.

      After pointing a gun at P.T.’s and Leticia’s heads, Valtierra
shot at A.T. several times from no more than 10 feet away.

                                 2
Valtierra continued to fire at A.T.’s back as he fell to the ground.
Prosecution witnesses also testified that, when E.T. ran towards
the back of a nearby apartment building, Valtierra chased and
shot him twice in the back. Valtierra also fired the gun at
Leticia’s brother, as he ran to his truck, but missed.

      A.T. died as a result of suffering a gunshot wound to his left
shoulder. He also suffered two other gunshot wounds—to his
rear right hip and to the back of his head. E.T. suffered two
gunshot wounds but survived.

      Valtierra fled to Salinas. Three weeks later, a gun was
found, in a field near San Joaquin, about 20 feet from the side of
a road. A firearms expert opined that all nine casings found at
the crime scene had been fired from the recovered gun.

      When Valtierra was interviewed by a detective with the
Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, he initially claimed to not
remember anything that happened after the fight began.
Valtierra later told detectives that there was no reason for the
shooting, that he did not see any other guns, that he did not
think he was going to die during the fight, that he was not afraid
of A.T, and that he felt bad about what happened.

                                 B.

       At trial, Valtierra changed his story. He testified that he
was knocked out during the fight and woke up (on his back) with
E.T. choking him. Valtierra pushed E.T. off, scrambled to his
feet, and then fell back down. Valtierra then heard and saw
shots being fired by Leticia’s brother, in Valtierra’s direction.
Valtierra fired five to six rounds at E.T., who was coming toward
him.

      Valtierra denied shooting A.T. and testified that he never
pointed the gun at Leticia, her brother, or P.T. He believed
Leticia’s brother shot A.T.

                                  3
      Valtierra admitted discarding his gun as he drove to
Salinas. He also acknowledged that he never told detectives that
he had been kicked in the head or that Leticia’s brother had a
gun. Valtierra said he suffered a concussion and could not
remember details of the fight until seven or eight months later.

                                 C.

      The jury acquitted Valtierra of first degree murder of A.T.
but convicted him of second degree murder of A.T., second degree
attempted murder of E.T., and three counts of assault with a
firearm.

                           DISCUSSION

                                  A.

      Valtierra argues that his state and federal constitutional
rights to a public trial were violated because one of his family
members was excluded from the courtroom during a portion of
jury selection and during argument on motions in limine. We
disagree.

                                 1.

       A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a public
trial. (U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I,
§ 15; People v. Woodward (1992) 4 Cal.4th 376, 382 (Woodward).)
This right extends to jury selection and pretrial evidentiary
hearings, which are presumptively required to be open to the
public unless necessary to protect an overriding interest (such as
the defendant’s right to fair trial). (Presley v. Georgia (2010) 558
U.S. 209, 213; Waller v. Georgia (1984) 467 U.S. 39, 44-46; People
v. Bui (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 675, 680 (Bui).)

       “The value of openness lies in the fact that people not
actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of
fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is
free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are

                                 4
being followed and that deviations will become known.” (Press-
Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1984) 464 U.S.
501, 508, italics omitted.) Violation of an accused’s constitutional
right to public trial is structural error, requiring reversal without
the necessity of showing prejudice. (Waller v. Georgia, supra, 467
U.S. at pp. 49-50; Woodward, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 381.)

       However, not every instance of exclusion from the
courtroom violates an accused’s public trial rights. California
courts deem some temporary and partial exclusions de minimis
or trivial. (Bui, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 688-689; People v.
Esquibel (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 539, 552-554.) Federal courts
also recognize a de minimis exception. (See, e.g., Gibbons v.
Savage (2d Cir. 2009) 555 F.3d 112, 121; United States v. Al-
Smadi (10th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 153.)

                                 2.

      Valtierra was tried in July and August of 2020—amid the
COVID-19 pandemic. Before trial began, the trial court,
prosecutor, and defense counsel discussed access to the
courtroom. The trial court explained that the trial would be open
to the public, but that jury selection could limit access to the
courtroom—because the court needed to prioritize space for
prospective jurors and allow room for social distancing.

        Specifically, the court stated, “if I don’t have social
distancing, [public access is] going to be limited, and we can
probably accommodate as many folks as we need during the trial
itself, but during jury selection when we have jurors actually
sitting out there, if we have room, they can come in; if we don’t
[have room], they don’t. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . Because there’s nothing
else we can do unless we cut a hole in the roof and have folks
sitting up there, and that’s not practical.” Defense counsel made
no objection.

                                  5
      On the third day of trial, the courtroom was initially
cleared to hear Valtierra’s in camera motion to substitute his
counsel, pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118
(Marsden). The minute order shows jury selection began at
around 10:00 a.m. The court spent 36 minutes taking roll and
giving preliminary instructions to prospective jurors before they
were dismissed until the following day. Next, the minute order
and reporter’s transcript show that court reconvened for
approximately 41 minutes (without prospective jurors) while
counsel argued evidentiary issues. The court then took a break
for lunch.

     When the court began its afternoon session , defense
counsel made the following record outside the presence of
prospective jurors:

      “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . I just have a concern as to
this being a public trial, and I know that the Court had
previously ordered anyone who wanted to watch the trial and had
approached downstairs and told them they were going to come to
[the courtroom] to watch the trial, that they should be admitted.
I was informed by my investigator that a member of Mr.
Valtierra’s family did so and was . . . denied entry.

       “THE COURT: Okay. Well, that’s incorrect, because he
should have anybody he wants to come can come. . . . I think
we’re going to have three different courtrooms. They may not
necessarily be sitting in here. They may be sitting in a court next
to us, but they’ll be able to see us, hear us, we’ll be able to hear
them just like anything else.

      “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I just want to make sure the
procedure gets corrected.

      “THE COURT: Absolutely.

       “THE BAILIFF: We were told - - we advised during jury
selection no one’s going to come in because we need to make room
                                 6
for the jurors. It’s not open - - you know, they’re not going to be
hearing anything, so I don’t understand why someone needs to
come and watch jury selection.

      “THE COURT: No, but the thing is that’s part of the trial.

      “THE BAILIFF: So you’d rather have a juror displaced and
have someone come in here?

      “THE COURT: No, no, no. I’m not arguing. What I’m
saying is, we have to have it open, and we have three courtrooms
that we can sit somebody, and somebody can sit in. We’re going
to be done with jury selection very soon. [¶] . . . [¶]

      ‘THE BAILIFF: . . . I was gone. I was told by whoever sat
in here they said your order was once the trial starts, then we
advise the lobby, then they’ll let people in.

       “THE COURT: Let’s do this: Let’s advise the lobby that
folks can come in, assuming they don’t have a fever, assuming
they are masked and so forth, and we will accommodate them. If
that means them sitting here, all likely not, it’s more likely they’ll
sit next door . . . but we have to make it open, otherwise, we have
to broadcast it. Um, do you know how to do that, [clerk]?

      “THE CLERK: Broadcast it, yes, we can.

      “THE COURT: Are you requesting we broadcast it?

      “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would ask that it
be broadcast to make it a public trial, although, I would note [the
[prosecutor] had some concerns about that given the fact that
there were minors testifying. [¶] . . . [¶]

     “[PROSECUTOR]: My major concern was the witnesses
watching other witnesses’ testimony.

     “THE COURT: Right, right, right. That’s why we had this
conversation before.

                                  7
      “[PROSECUTOR]: We did, and that’s why I agree with the
procedure of anybody who wants to come into [the courtroom],
comes into [the courtroom.]

       “THE COURT: That’s what we’re going to do. Obviously,
we had the discussion. I thought it out in the past. I’m not going
to revisit it because there’s no new facts. So we’re going to leave
that as it is, but we’re going to make absolutely certain that if
Mr. Valtierra’s family or anybody else wants to come in and see,
they’ll have access to come in.”

      After the jury was sworn, the trial court reiterated that
Valtierra’s family (except for those who were witnesses) and any
other members of the public were free to enter the courtroom.
Defense counsel stated for the record, “Valtierra’s family was
allowed in yesterday by the Court security. They were under
subpoena, though, so they could not watch the trial but they were
allowed in.”

                                3.

      Valtierra insists that the trial court committed structural
error—requiring reversal without a showing of prejudice—by
completely closing the trial to the public without articulating any
overriding interest or ensuring that the closure was no broader
than necessary. The People, on the other hand, argue that the
record demonstrates only a de minimis exclusion that did not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation. The People have the
better argument.

      Bui, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th 675, involved the temporary
exclusion of three spectators, including two of the defendant’s
family members, from about 40 minutes of jury voir dire. (Id. at
pp. 679, 685-686, 688.) On appeal, the temporary and partial
exclusion—which did not involve the evidentiary phase of trial
and was rectified as soon as the trial court learned that the
family members had been admonished not to talk before the

                                 8
prospective jurors—was deemed de minimis and not in violation
of the defendant’s public trial right. (Id. at pp. 686-689.) This
Division recognized that “the Sixth Amendment right to a public
trial ‘is not trammeled . . . by a trivial, inadvertent courtroom
closure.’ ” (Bui, supra, at p. 687, italics added; accord, id. at pp.
688-689.)

       In Woodward, supra, 4 Cal.4th 376, the trial court
permitted the bailiff to temporarily lock the courtroom doors
during the prosecutor’s closing argument. (Id. at pp. 379, 383.)
Our Supreme Court held that the closure was de minimis because
it lasted only one and one-half hours, did not exclude preexisting
spectators (who were in the courtroom when the doors were
locked), and did not involve the evidentiary phase of trial. (Id. at
pp. 379, 381, 385-386.)

       Valtierra asks us to distinguish Bui and Woodward by
presuming that, in this case, the courtroom was closed to all
spectators during the entire morning session of the third day of
trial. The bailiff’s volunteered statements on the record before us
do not make it clear that anyone other than Valtierra’s single
family member (much less all spectators) was excluded from the
courtroom. Furthermore, the bailiff appeared to believe that
spectators could be excluded only during jury selection—to
ensure prospective jurors could abide by spacing protocols.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether anyone who tried to enter the
courtroom during the other proceedings that morning would have
been excluded. On this record, we must resolve this issue against
Valtierra because he fails to meet his burden on appeal to
demonstrate a complete closure of the courtroom. (See People v.
Whalen (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1, 85; Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)

      We also find limited support for Valtierra’s assertion that
the exclusion involved an entire morning. Our review of the
relevant minute order and reporter’s transcripts demonstrates

                                  9
only that one spectator was inadvertently excluded during (at
most) one hour and 17 minutes of jury selection and argument on
in limine motions. No evidence was received during this time.
The trial court ordered the trial to be public and rectified the
inadvertent closure as soon as it was brought to the court’s
attention.

      Although we do not condone the mistake, we agree with the
People that the trial court did not violate Valtierra’s right to a
public trial. (See Woodward, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 385-386;
Bui, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 686-689; United States v. Al-
Smadi, supra, 15 F.3d at pp. 154-155.)

                                 B.

      Valtierra also contends the trial court violated his Sixth
Amendment rights when it terminated his self-representation.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. (See
People v. Becerra (2016) 63 Cal.4th 511, 518-519 [standard of
review] (Becerra).)

                                 1.

      A criminal defendant possesses two mutually exclusive
constitutional rights with respect to representation. The accused
has the right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of
a criminal prosecution. (United States v. Cronic (1984) 466 U.S.
648, 658-659; People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 20.) At the
same time, because the Sixth Amendment grants the defendant a
personal right to present a defense, the accused also possesses a
right of self-representation. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422
U.S. 806, 819 (Faretta); Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 20.)

       A trial court generally must grant a defendant’s request for
self-representation if certain conditions are met. (People v. Doss
(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 46, 54.) First, the defendant must be
mentally competent, and must make their request knowingly and
intelligently, having been apprised of the dangers of self-
                                10
representation. (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 835; Becerra,
supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 519.) Second, the defendant must make
their request unequivocally. (Faretta, supra, at p. 835; Becerra,
supra, at p. 519.) Third, an accused must make their request
within a reasonable time before trial. (People v. Welch (1999) 20
Cal.4th 701, 729.) If a Faretta motion is made after trial begins,
the defendant is no longer constitutionally entitled to self-
representation. An untimely motion is addressed to the trial
court’s discretion. (People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121,
128.)

      The right of self-representation has other limits. A
defendant may not represent themself if they are unwilling or
unable to abide by courtroom rules and protocol. (See McKaskle
v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168, 173; Becerra, supra, 63 Cal.4th at
p. 518.) Accordingly, a trial judge may terminate an accused’s
pro per status if they “deliberately engage[] in serious and
obstructionist misconduct.” (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 834-
835, fn. 46; accord, Becerra, supra, at p. 518.)

      Erroneous revocation of an accused’s Faretta status is
reversible per se. (People v. Butler (2009) 47 Cal.4th 814, 824–
825; see also McKaskle v. Wiggins, supra, 465 U.S. at p. 177, fn.
8.)

                                2.

      On the date set for trial, Valtierra appeared with appointed
counsel. Both defense counsel and the prosecutor announced
they were ready to proceed. The court heard argument and ruled
on various motions in limine. Two court days later, Valtierra
made a Marsden motion, which was denied.

      On the morning of the fifth court day, while jury selection
was still ongoing, Valtierra moved to represent himself, under
Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. 806. The court noted that it had
discretion to grant the motion because Valtierra’s motion was

                                11
made after trial began. The court also advised Valtierra of the
consequences of self-representation and that it would not merit a
continuance.

       During its admonitions, the trial court warned Valtierra:
“You will be responsible for selecting the jury, asking the
appropriate questions. You will get zero assistance. If you . . .
[ask] inappropriate questions, I will shut you down.” It also
advised Valtierra: “[Y]ou must not abuse the dignity of the
Court. Understand the Judge may terminate your right to self-
representation in the event that you engaged in serious conduct
[sic] or obstruct the conduct and progress of the trial.”

      After being further advised of the risks of self-
representation, the following exchange occurred on the record:

       “THE DEFENDANT: So regarding the jury, we’re not done
selecting jury trial.

      “THE COURT: No, we’re not.

      “THE DEFENDANT: Okay. So then I just have one
question to ask then. That is: Does any one of them have any
issue or problem with the fact that I’ve tested positive for corona
virus . . . within the past month and have not yet retested for a
negative result, and inmates in my pod are experiencing
symptoms like myself having a headache today.[2] Is that . . .
okay to ask them? I think that should - -

      “THE COURT: No. No, it’s not okay to ask them.

      2 The record indicates that the Fresno County jail was
under COVID-19 quarantine about a month earlier. Valtierra
tested positive 16 days before he appeared in court for trial, but
tested negative in the interim. At the time he made his Faretta
motion, it had been at least 25 days since Valtierra’s positive test.
                                 12
      “THE DEFENDANT: All right. Because they don’t know
that information. . . . [T]hey’re not going to be concerned about
that, and you are ordered not to tell them that.

         “THE DEFENDANT: All right. That was on the record;
right?

         “THE COURT: That is on record. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

      “THE DEFENDANT: What I’m saying, Your Honor, is at
this point I’m not ready to proceed to trial. I’m not ready to
proceed with trial. [¶] . . . [¶]

     “THE COURT: Trial’s going to go forward. Are you sure
you want to represent yourself?

         “THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

      “THE COURT: Okay. . . . I’m going to bring the jurors back
in. I’m going to give you an opportunity to talk to them. I’m
going to excuse and relieve [defense counsel]. . . . We’re going
forward. And I know that sounds harsh, but you and I had this
conversation before when I told you during the course of the
Marsden [hearing], I said, ‘Look, the only way that you can steer
the ship is if you represent yourself and file a Faretta motion.’
You waited over the weekend, and now we’re on Friday, and now
you’re saying you want to have the Faretta, and I’ve granted your
Faretta, so you’re going to represent yourself, and we’re going to
move forward. [¶] . . . [¶]

      “THE COURT: . . . [Defense counsel], we’ll see you later.
Be prepared because I’m bringing the jury back in here, and
you’re going to be required to question them. Do not bring up
anything about no [sic] COVID, none of that.

         “THE DEFENDANT: I’m going to be honest.

         “THE COURT: What was that?

         “THE DEFENDANT: I’m going to be honest.

                                    13
      “THE COURT: If you bring up anything about COVID - -

      “THE DEFENDANT: Might as well revoke it now.

      “THE COURT: You’re not going to - -

      “THE DEFENDANT:· What I’m saying is it is a very
serious issue.· People are dying, over 100,000 are dying, so why
would we subject people to my infection?· Why would we do that?

      “THE COURT:· All right.· The Court’s revoking self-
representation.· The record’s clear.” (Italics added.)

                                3.

      Valtierra contends the trial court abused its discretion
because it purportedly terminated his self-representation without
warning, without making an adequate record that he engaged in
misconduct sufficient to justify termination, and without
considering alternative sanctions. He is wrong.

       Termination of self-representation is a severe sanction that
should be imposed as a last resort. (Becerra, supra, 63 Cal.4th at
pp. 518, 520.) “ ‘When determining whether termination is
necessary and appropriate, the trial court should consider several
factors in addition to the nature of the misconduct and its impact
on the trial proceedings,’ including (1) ‘the availability and
suitability of alternative sanctions,’ (2) ‘whether the defendant
has been warned that particular misconduct will result in
termination of in propria persona status,’ and (3) ‘whether the
defendant has “intentionally sought to disrupt and delay his
trial.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 518.)

       People v. Carson (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1 (Carson) involved
termination based on out-of-court misconduct. In that situation,
the trial court must make additional efforts to create an adequate
record supporting its decision. (Becerra, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p.
518; Carson, supra, at p. 11.) But when in-court misconduct
forms the basis for termination, the reporter’s transcript will

                                14
generally suffice. (Carson, supra, at p. 11.) We defer to the trial
court’s “ ‘assessment of the defendant’s motives and sincerity as
well as the nature and context of his misconduct and its impact
on the integrity of the trial.’ ” (Becerra, supra, at p. 518.)

       Here, Valtierra was warned that he could not use self-
representation to delay trial and that he needed to follow
courtroom rules and protocol. The trial court also specifically
(and repeatedly) warned Valtierra that he could not discuss his
positive COVID-19 test result (or symptoms) with prospective
jurors during voir dire. In response, Valtierra explicitly indicated
that he understood his Faretta status could be revoked for his
failure to heed the trial court’s orders on that subject. Despite
this understanding and the court’s repeated orders not to,
Valtierra persisted with his plan to inflame the prospective
juror’s fears about COVID-19. Accordingly, the record amply
supports the trial court’s implicit finding that Valtierra
intentionally sought to use his self-represented status to disrupt
and delay the trial.

       Valtierra insists that the trial court abused its discretion
because it failed to consider lesser sanctions. However, his
appellate briefs fail to demonstrate the adequacy of any other
sanction. (See Carson, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 12.) Valtierra’s
only suggestion is that the trial court should have allowed him to
proceed and then—after the prospective jurors had been informed
of the jail quarantine, Valtierra’s positive test result, and his
purported symptoms—admonish the prospective jurors to
disregard his statements and to trust the safety measures
already in place. When considering the impact Valtierra’s
disclosure would have on prospective jurors’ willingness to serve,
the inadequacy of this lesser sanction is self-evident.

      This brings us to the crux of Valtierra’s argument—that his
refusal to heed court orders was insufficient to warrant
termination because the trial court did not permit him to

                                15
continue his disobedience and to actually disrupt and delay the
trial. But the trial court was under no such obligation. (See
Carson, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 10 [“the defendant’s acts need not
result in a disruption of the trial” because “[t]he likely, not the
actual, effect of the misconduct should be the primary
consideration”], italics added.)

      Repeatedly refusing to obey court orders and intentionally
attempting to delay trial is precisely the kind of serious
misconduct that threatens to impair the integrity of trial. (See
Carson, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 10; People v. Kirvin (2014) 231
Cal.App.4th 1507, 1516.) The trial court did not abuse its
discretion.

                                 C.

      Next, Valtierra maintains the trial court violated his Sixth
Amendment right of confrontation by requiring witnesses to wear
protective face masks while testifying. Like the other courts of
appeal that have considered similar arguments (see, e.g., People
v. Edwards (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 523, 525-527), we disagree.

       The trial court ordered all persons in the court, including
testifying witnesses, to wear a mask. Valtierra asked the trial
court to lift that requirement for testifying witnesses, arguing the
jury would otherwise be unable to judge credibility. The trial
court denied his motion.

      The United States Supreme Court understands the
confrontation clause to reflect a strong preference for face-to-face
confrontation at trial. But that preference is not absolute and
must occasionally give way to important public policy
considerations. (Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 844,
847-850.) “The central concern of the confrontation clause ‘is to
ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal
defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an
adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.’ [Citation.] This

                                 16
concern is satisfied when the witness: (1) is physically present for
his or her testimony; (2) testifies under oath; (3) is subject to
cross-examination; and (4) may have his or her demeanor
observed by the trier of fact.” (People v. Bharth (2021) 68
Cal.App.5th 801, 814.)

       Accordingly, a defendant’s right to confront witnesses may
be satisfied without a traditional face-to-face confrontation at
trial where “denial of such confrontation is necessary to further
an important public policy” and “the reliability of the testimony is
otherwise assured.” (Maryland v. Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at p.
850.)

       Here, the trial court’s mask requirement was necessary to
further an important public policy—protecting the health and
safety of trial participants during a global pandemic. And all the
confrontation clause’s central reliability concerns remained
otherwise assured: witnesses testified in the defendant’s and
jury’s physical presence, witnesses were under oath, and
witnesses were subject to cross-examination and observation of
demeanor by the trier of fact. True, Valtierra and the jury may
have been impeded from observing witnesses’ full facial
expressions because testifying witnesses wore face masks that
covered their noses and mouths. But because Valtierra and the
jury remained able to hear witnesses speak, as well as see their
eyes and body language, they could meaningfully observe
witnesses’ demeanor.

       Valtierra’s confrontation rights were not violated by the
trial court’s requirement that witnesses cover their mouths and
noses to further public safety during a global pandemic.3 (See

      3 We need not further consider Valtierra’s argument that
the trial court should have ordered testifying witnesses to wear
clear masks. In support of that argument, Valtierra filed a
request for judicial notice of various advertisements showing the
costs of clear masks on Amazon.com. The Fifth District deferred
                                 17
People v. Edwards, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 525-527; People
v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 230; People v. Alvarez (2022)
75 Cal.App.5th 28, 37-39.)

                                D.

      Finally, Valtierra argues that the trial court abused its
discretion and violated his constitutional rights to confront
witnesses by limiting his cross-examination of one of Leticia’s
children (P.T.). We disagree.

       Before trial, the People moved to limit the defense’s
questioning of P.T. regarding statements she made, to an
employee of the Fresno County Department of Social Services
(Department), which suggested P.T. was not present at the scene
of the shooting. The purported prior statement conflicted with
P.T.’s anticipated testimony at trial. P.T. testified that she was
present at the scene of the shooting. Because every other witness
to the shooting (including Valtierra himself) similarly placed P.T.
at the scene, the People insisted the defense’s proposed line of
questioning was on a collateral matter.

       Initially, the trial court concluded that defense counsel
could ask P.T., on cross-examination, about her prior statement
but that testimony from the Department employee would not be
admitted. But when the court learned that P.T. had since denied
telling anyone at the Department that she did not witness the

ruling on the opposed motion, and we now deny the request for
judicial notice. Valtierra fails to demonstrate that the
advertisements were noticed by the trial court (Brosterhous v.
State Bar (1995) 12 Cal.4th 315, 325-326) or that the content of
the advertisements represent “[f]acts and propositions that are
not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate
and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably
indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h); Searles
Valley Minerals Operations, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization
(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 514, 519.)
                                18
shooting, the court granted the People’s motion and excluded the
evidence. The trial court concluded that, under Evidence Code
section 352, the evidence’s probative value was substantially
outweighed by its undue consumption of time.

      The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Valtierra is
correct that P.T.’s alleged statement to the Department employee
was inconsistent with her testimony at trial. And the jury may
consider any matter that tends to prove or disprove the
truthfulness of a witness’s testimony. (People v. Harris (2005) 37
Cal.4th 310, 337; accord, Evid. Code, § 780.) However, Evidence
Code section 352 grants a trial court broad discretion to exclude
impeachment evidence to “ ‘prevent criminal trials from
degenerating into nitpicking wars of attrition over collateral
credibility issues.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 301.)
And although the right of confrontation includes the right to
cross-examine adverse witnesses on matters reflecting on their
credibility, trial judges also retain wide latitude under the
confrontation clause to impose reasonable limits on such cross-
examination. (Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 678-
679.)

       Here, the proffered evidence did not directly suggest that
P.T.’s testimony at trial was untruthful. Rather, because it was
undisputed that she testified truthfully at trial that she
witnessed the shooting, any inconsistency primarily tended to
show P.T. had lied to a Department employee in the context of a
child welfare investigation.

      Furthermore, because P.T. denied making the purported
inconsistent statement, defense counsel would need to call the
Department employee to testify about the content of P.T.’s earlier
statement. Accordingly, her earlier statement would have no
probative value unless actually inconsistent and at the same time
required an undue consumption of time. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence pursuant to

                                 19
Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th
1301, 1328; People v. Tidwell (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1456-
1457.)

      Nor has Valtierra demonstrated a violation of the
confrontation clause. A trial court’s limitation on cross-
examination does not violate the confrontation clause unless a
reasonable jury would have obtained a significantly different
impression of the witness’s credibility had the excluded cross-
examination been permitted. (Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra,
475 U.S. at p. 680; People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600,
623-624.) Valtierra’s defense counsel impeached P.T. in other
ways—by highlighting inconsistencies between her trial
testimony and both her preliminary hearing testimony and her
earlier statements to police. Where evidence would impeach a
witness on a collateral matter and is only marginally probative of
their veracity, application of Evidence Code section 352 to
exclude the evidence does not infringe a defendant’s
constitutional confrontation rights. (People v. Jennings (1991) 53
Cal.3d 334, 372.)

                                E.

     We need not consider Valtierra’s argument that the
cumulative effect of trial errors requires reversal of the judgment
because we have rejected all his arguments on the merits.

                          DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

                                20
                                    ______________________
                                    BURNS, J.

We concur:

____________________________
JACKSON, P.J.

____________________________
SIMONS, J.

A165832

                               21