This morning the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Arredondo (S244166). Arredondo was convicted of 14 sex offenses against his three young step-daughters. He had been repeatedly molesting them over an 8 year period. It finally came to an end when he inappropriately touched one of the victim's friends on multiple occasions. She told a school counselor of the abuse which lead to Arredondo's arrest.
At trial, the oldest victim was 18-years old and in the 11th grade. He started molesting her when she was 8-years old and it ended when she was 16-years old. When she took the stand to testify against Arredondo, she started crying and had a very hard time continuing with her testimony. The court took a recess so that she could compose herself. During the recess, the witness box was slightly modified so that a small computer monitor located on the witness stand was slightly elevated so to block her direct view of Arredondo. Arredondo objected and argued that the modified witness box violated his 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. The trial court disagreed and overruled the objection. The monitor remained elevated and Arredondo was subsequently found guilty.
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The issue before the California Supreme Court was whether defendant's confrontation rights were violated by the placement of the monitor so that he was unable to see his victims as they testified in his presence. The California Supreme Court held that Arredondo's rights were violated and it reversed the convictions involving the 18-year old witness. CJLF filed a brief urging affirmance (found here.)
One of Arredondo's arguments was that there was a lack of express case specific findings made by the trial court and that there was insufficient evidence to justify an accommodation on the witness stand. The California Supreme Court agreed with Arredondo in that the record was insufficient to support the accommodation made for the victim by the trial court.
Arredondo further argued that because the oldest victim was 18-years old when she testified, no accommodation should have been permitted because there is no "'transcendent' state interest in protecting adult witnesses.'" Arredondo pointed to Penal Code ยง 1347, which sets forth a procedure for allowing sexually abused victims ages 13-years old and younger to testify remotely. He argued that section 1347 "'defines the extent of accommodations in California.'" The court disagreed and rejected this argument:
We reject defendant's argument that, in light of section 1347, a court is constitutionally precluded from ordering an accommodation as to witnesses older than 13 years of age, and from ordering an accommodation other than testimony by closed-circuit television. Nothing in the statute's language or legislative history suggests that the particular accommodation the statute sets forth is the only permissible accommodation.
The court further stated, "we reject defendant's view that the authorization section 1347 provides for one particular accommodation implicitly precludes any other accommodation."
Even though Arredondo's convictions against the oldest victim were reversed due to the lack of findings made by the trial court, the opinion is a win overall for victims of sexual abuse who may need alternate procedures for testifying or may need modifications made in the courtroom to prevent him or her from having to directly face his or her abuser. Because the court only reversed 3 of the convictions against Arredondo and affirmed the remainder, he will remain in prison on the affirmed convictions.
Leave a comment