In People v. Larsen and People v. Jacobson,
the court addressed the question of whether a trial court must ask the jurors if
they had seen news reports about the case. Both trial courts gave repeated admonitions
not to seek out news about the case. Thus, the trial courts did not abuse their discretion
by refusing to poll the jury about prejudicial news reports. The supreme court affirmed the defendants’
convictions.
Martinez v. People and— The supreme court reviewed the
trial court’s decision to allow the jury unfettered access, to the recorded
DVDs statements of three sexual assault victims admitted as exhibits during trial. [Normally, prior statements of witnesses are inadmissible
as hearsay. However, there is a
statutory exception in child sexual assault cases] The supreme court concluded
that giving the DVDs to the jury without protest by the defense was not a
“plain error.” This means that the
attorney had to stand up and object in order to raise the issue on appeal. So, the defendant’s appeal was unsuccessful.
People v. Jefferson — Similarly to Martinez,
in Jefferson a DVD of the recorded statement of a child sexual assault
victim was admitted and provided to the jury without the trial court insuring
that the jury would not accord it undue weight or emphasis. Unlike Martinez, the defense did object
and the appeal was successful because the jury could have given the DVD
recording too much weight. [This case
should be useful in the future to keep a jury from watching a DVD over and over
again. Many times, good case law comes
from nasty cases.]
These two cases also
highlight the importance of hiring a good trial lawyer; a good lawyer will make
the proper objection at the appropriate time to preserve his/her client’s
rights on appeal.
People v. Beauvais—The supreme court dealt with a
trial court’s “Batson ruling.” Batson
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) prohibits eliminating juror on the basis of
sex or race. The supreme court
determined that the trial court followed the 3-step analysis required by Batson
and provided sufficient details.
People v. Reyes-Valenzuela— In this case the
defendant was reported going into and out of houses under construction. He was seen by the reporting person going
into a house and coming out with a black bag.
Deputies questioned the defendant, he spoke limited English but provided
his name and birthdate. He was
subsequently arrested under an outstanding warrant. Defendant’s counsel moved to suppress the
evidence because there were innocent explanations for the defendant’s presence
at the scene. The supreme court addressed
whether an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal
behavior is afoot, and if the officer must consider the possible innocent
explanations for otherwise suspicious behavior before conducting an investigatory
stop. The court held that, an officer does not have to consider every possible
innocent explanation for criminal behavior, the officers in this case
justifiably performed an investigatory stop on the defendant based on a
reasonable, articulable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity.
