Case Law People v. Breceda

People v. Breceda

Document Cited Authorities (42) Cited in (16) Related

Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael T. Murphy and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

O'LEARY, P. J.

"Jury trial began in March 2020"—ominous words for a court of review.

This is the first case in California where a state appellate court must decide whether a pause in a criminal jury trial due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic violated an accused's due process right to a fair trial.

In this case, the prosecution nearly completed its case-in-chief against John Ramon Breceda when the trial court paused proceedings on March 16, 2020, because three of the 14 jurors were ill. Breceda refused to waive time and refused to proceed with 11 jurors. The trial court denied his motion for a mistrial and continued the case.

Beginning that day, and for months after, the COVID-19 pandemic caused California officials to issue a flurry of orders to continue to provide essential government services, safeguard constitutional rights, and protect people from a mysterious, contagious, and deadly virus. The effect of some of those orders was jury trials could not proceed.

Seventy-two days after the trial court paused proceedings, the court denied Breceda's second motion for a mistrial. Trial resumed the following day. The prosecution completed its case-in-chief, and Breceda testified. The jury acquitted Breceda of first degree murder but convicted him of second degree murder and arson of another's property.

Breceda argues the trial court erred by denying his mistrial motions because the pause in his jury trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic violated his due process right to a fair trial.1 We disagree.

Although the pause in the trial was lengthy, 10 weeks, Breceda's constitutional rights were not set aside and forgotten. (See Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) ––– U.S. ––––, , 208 L.Ed.2d 206 ["But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten"].) On the contrary, the record demonstrates the court remained appropriately focused on Breceda's constitutional rights during the onset of an unprecedented global health crisis. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

In 2015, Breceda fatally stabbed Floriberto Villaseñor in the neck. The only issue at trial was whether Breceda did it intentionally or acted in self-defense. The jury resolved that issue against Breceda.

I. Pretrial

A 2016 information charged Breceda with murder ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a),2 count 1), and arson of another's property (§ 451, subd. (d), count 2). The information alleged Breceda personally used a deadly weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The information also alleged Breceda suffered a prior serious and violent conviction (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, (b), (c)(1)), and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).3

After numerous pretrial motions and replacement of the assigned prosecutor, the matter was progressing toward trial in early 2020. Then the novel coronavirus upended our lives.

On February 26, 2020, the County of Orange declared a local health emergency to prepare for the COVID-19 outbreak and requested Governor Gavin Newsom to declare a state of emergency.4

On March 4, 2020, the trial court empaneled the jury. That same day, the Governor declared a state of emergency due to the global COVID-19 outbreak.5 Witness testimony began the following day on March 5, 2020.

II. Trial
A. March 5, 2020—Thursday

On the first day of testimony, the prosecution called a witness, an emergency responder, a forensic pathologist, and the lead detective, Michelle Bradbury. The evidence demonstrated that around 4:30 p.m., 44-year-old Villaseñor was running on a sidewalk holding his hand to his neck and asking for help. Villaseñor collapsed on the witness's front yard, and the witness called 911. Emergency responders arrived, treated Villaseñor's neck laceration, and transported him to the hospital—he died en route. Villaseñor had on his person $1,806 in cash, 14.9 grams of methamphetamine, and a motel key card.

Police officers found a broken taillight and sun visor on the ground. Officers went to the motel and learned Maricela Lee registered for the room that corresponded to the motel key card. Motel surveillance video showed Villaseñor, Maricela Gomez-Lee, Breceda, and an unknown male entering and exiting the motel room the morning of the stabbing. The video showed Villaseñor holding a cooler entering and exiting the room.

A little later, officers spotted Gomez-Lee's car, stopped her, spoke with her, and covertly placed a tracking device on her car. Two days after the incident, officers found Villaseñor's burned car in San Juan Capistrano, California. There was a cooler in the trunk.

Villaseñor suffered a three and one-half inch long and four-inch deep laceration to the right side of his neck. A sharp cutting instrument severed the right carotid artery and jugular vein. Villaseñor had no defensive wounds, but he did have methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system.

Forensic testing connected Breceda to the sun visor, and officers arrested him. A few weeks later, officers tracked Gomez-Lee to a residence in Lake Elsinore, California. They interviewed her, arrested her, and transported her to the police station where they interviewed her again.

B. March 9, 2020—Monday

Gomez-Lee and her friend Sally S. testified for the prosecution. Gomez-Lee was charged with being an accessory after the fact and arson of another's property for her role in Villaseñor's death; she testified pursuant to a grant of use immunity. She and Breceda were romantically involved before he went into custody, and when he was released, they resumed their friendship.

Early on the morning of the incident, Breceda, who was with Villaseñor and the unnamed man, asked Gomez-Lee to rent a motel room for Villaseñor. After she rented the motel room, the four went to the room; she and Breceda smoked methamphetamine. Later that morning, Villaseñor and Breceda left in Villaseñor's car, Gomez-Lee left in her car, and the unnamed man left in his vehicle.

Around noon, Breceda called Gomez-Lee and asked her to pick him up on Peppertree Lane. When she arrived, she saw Villaseñor asleep in his car and picked up Breceda nearby. He was frustrated because the man that he and Villaseñor were waiting for did not arrive and he felt Villaseñor was wasting his time. Gomez-Lee and Breceda drove around smoking methamphetamine. Breceda told her that he needed a knife to open packages so she drove to a grocery store. Inside the store, she picked up a box cutter but Breceda said it was not sharp enough to cut the thick wrapping. Gomez-Lee stole a knife with a two to three-inch blade and gave it to Breceda.

In the car, Breceda told Gomez-Lee to take him back to Peppertree Lane. Gomez-Lee dropped him off near Villaseñor's car. Gomez-Lee drove to a nearby gas station where she eventually sold her jumper cables to buy gas.

About an hour later, she noticed police activity in the area where she had dropped off Breceda and drove back to the area but did not see Villaseñor's car. Her cell phone was dead, and she went to a store and stole a charger. When her phone charged, Breceda called her and told her "shit went down" and to meet him at the Tustin Marketplace because he needed his backpack, which he had left in her car.

When she arrived, Breceda was alone and driving Villaseñor's car. He said, "It's all bad" and left.

After midnight, Breceda called Gomez-Lee and asked her to meet him at the Tustin Marketplace. When she arrived, Breceda was alone and driving Villaseñor's car. Gomez-Lee followed Breceda south on the I-5 freeway to a field. Breceda parked Villaseñor's car, poured gas on it, and lit it on fire. Breceda told Gomez-Lee that he needed to get rid of the car. As Gomez-Lee drove Breceda home, she asked him what had happened. Breceda told her "shit went down" and "to keep [her] fucking mouth shut." She saw Breceda again a couple of times before going to stay with her friend Sally in Lake Elsinore.

Gomez-Lee admitted she did not tell police officers about stealing the knife when they interviewed her at the police station. She did not mention it until agreeing to testify and receiving immunity. Gomez-Lee admitted she suffered two felony convictions for receiving stolen property.

Cross-examination of Gomez-Lee paused to allow Sally to testify. Sally testified she and Gomez-Lee smoked methamphetamine, and Gomez-Lee told her "something went wrong" and she and Breceda lit a car on fire. Sally did not recall telling police that Gomez-Lee told her the knife was in the car they set ablaze. Sally agreed she told police that Gomez-Lee said Breceda went to collect money, something went wrong, and a person had been stabbed.

Cross-examination of Gomez-Lee resumed. Gomez-Lee met Breceda through her ex-husband, who was a drug dealer; Breceda was his "muscle," collecting money for him. She knew Breceda collected drug debts and sold drugs occasionally. The trial court recessed for the day.

C. March 10, 2020—Tuesday

Cross-examination of Gomez-Lee resumed. Gomez-Lee agreed she did not mention the knife until she received immunity. On redirect examination, she stated Breceda never claimed he acted in self-defense.

The prosecution also offered the testimony of the deputy sheriff who responded to the call regarding Villaseñor's burning car, the motel manager who produced the surveillance video, and another witness to what transpired on Peppertree Lane.

This witness was outside with his children when he heard someone yell, "Hey, hey." He saw one man chasing another man. He saw the man who was being...

5 cases
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2022
People v. Kocontes
"...people from COVID-19. The effect of some of those orders was jury trials could not proceed. (See People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 81-84, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 899 ( Breceda ) [detailing Chief Justice's, Governor's, and Presiding Judge's orders].)On April 1, the trial court and counsel ..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2024
Rodriguez v. Super. Ct. of Santa Clara Cty.
"...stringent social distancing measures. She ordered, inter alia, all jury trials suspended for 60 days." (People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 82, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 899.) The present record shows that from March 2020 through April 2021, both the Chief Justice and the presiding judge of t..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2022
People v. Garcia, A161579, A161644
"...choice but to obey the stay order." ( Id . at p. 228, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 118 P.3d 496.)Most recently in People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 899 ( Breceda ), the Fourth District held that the defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by a 73-day midtrial del..."
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2024
State v. Henderson
"...arguments or tempt jurors to rush to a consensus and be done with deliberations once and for all. See, e.g., People v. Breceda, 76 Cal. App. 5th 71, 95, 290 Cal. Rptr. 3d 899 (2022) (acknowledging risks created by interruption of more than seventy days during trial but reasoning that, "alth..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2024
The People v. Mundy
"...prosecution's case-in-chief, "caused the jurors to decide the case in the prosecution's favor and to discuss the case with others." (Breceda, supra, at p. 95.) appellate court stated defendant's contention would be tantamount to a presumption that the jurors violated the trial court's admon..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2022
People v. Kocontes
"...people from COVID-19. The effect of some of those orders was jury trials could not proceed. (See People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 81-84, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 899 ( Breceda ) [detailing Chief Justice's, Governor's, and Presiding Judge's orders].)On April 1, the trial court and counsel ..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2024
Rodriguez v. Super. Ct. of Santa Clara Cty.
"...stringent social distancing measures. She ordered, inter alia, all jury trials suspended for 60 days." (People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 82, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 899.) The present record shows that from March 2020 through April 2021, both the Chief Justice and the presiding judge of t..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2022
People v. Garcia, A161579, A161644
"...choice but to obey the stay order." ( Id . at p. 228, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 118 P.3d 496.)Most recently in People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 899 ( Breceda ), the Fourth District held that the defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated by a 73-day midtrial del..."
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2024
State v. Henderson
"...arguments or tempt jurors to rush to a consensus and be done with deliberations once and for all. See, e.g., People v. Breceda, 76 Cal. App. 5th 71, 95, 290 Cal. Rptr. 3d 899 (2022) (acknowledging risks created by interruption of more than seventy days during trial but reasoning that, "alth..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2024
The People v. Mundy
"...prosecution's case-in-chief, "caused the jurors to decide the case in the prosecution's favor and to discuss the case with others." (Breceda, supra, at p. 95.) appellate court stated defendant's contention would be tantamount to a presumption that the jurors violated the trial court's admon..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex