People v. Alvarez

Decision Date14 February 2022
Docket NumberB309269
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carlos Hector ALVAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Daniel Milchiker, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

PERLUSS, P.J.

A jury convicted Carlos Hector Alvarez of one count of first degree residential burglary. On appeal Alvarez contends the trial court erred in admitting his statement to law enforcement officers obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ( Miranda ). Alvarez also contends the court's order during the COVID-19 pandemic that all persons in the courtroom, including testifying witnesses, wear a mask covering the mouth and part of the nose interfered with the jury's ability to assess witness demeanor and thus violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Information

An information filed February 19, 2020 charged Alvarez with one count of first degree residential burglary ( Pen. Code, § 459 )1 with a person other than an accomplice present (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). Alvarez pleaded not guilty.

2. The Evidence at Trial

On January 22, 2020 Elen and Stephan Arabian's young son alerted them to a man standing in their yard. The Arabians checked their home security camera and saw Alvarez standing underneath their son's window. After calling the 911 emergency number, the Arabians checked the security camera again and saw Alvarez trying to open the door to their converted, furnished garage, which Stephan Arabian used as a cigar room. When Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies arrived at the Arabians’ home, Elen led them in through the house and unlocked the door of the cigar room leading to the outside. As soon as it was unlocked, the door "flung open" from the outside, and Alvarez stepped into the house. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies Luis Capilla and Vincent Soto immediately apprehended him. Alvarez was wearing socks on his hands. Deputy Capilla testified that, in his training and experience, individuals covered their hands with socks and similar items to prevent them from leaving fingerprint evidence.

Alvarez was handcuffed and led to the patrol car. Before reaching the car, the deputies noticed a large plastic trash bag near the side gate. Deputy Vincent Soto asked Alvarez whether the bag was his. Alvarez replied, "Yeah." Soto picked up the bag and took it to his patrol car. Deputies did not provide Alvarez with Miranda warnings before this exchange took place.

Surveillance footage from the home security camera introduced at Alvarez's trial showed Alvarez climbing over a locked fence to enter the Arabians’ yard and then standing at the door to the converted garage for more than nine minutes. The outside doorknob was damaged. Elen Arabian testified the doorknob had not been damaged prior to Alvarez's appearance at the home.

Alvarez did not testify, and the defense presented no witnesses. The theory of the defense was that, while Alvarez had been in the backyard, he never actually entered the home, so there was no burglary. Alternatively, even if he had entered the home, he did not do so with intent to commit a theft.

3. Verdict and Sentence

The jury convicted Alvarez of first degree residential burglary with a person present. The court sentenced Alvarez to the middle term of four years in state prison.

DISCUSSION
1. Alvarez Forfeited His Miranda Objection
a. Governing law

"A defendant who is in custody ... must be given Miranda warnings before police officers may interrogate him." ( People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 300, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 877, 96 P.3d 170.)2 Custodial interrogation means "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." ( Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; accord, Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 296, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 ; People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 476, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 247 P.3d 886.) Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible; they may be admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment if otherwise voluntarily made. ( Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 225, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 26, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 439, 418 P.3d 360.)

b. Relevant proceedings

At trial the prosecutor asked Deputy Capilla on direct examination, "When you saw that plastic bag, did you ask the defendant if the plastic bag was his?" Capilla responded, "My partner [Deputy Soto] asked him in my presence if it was his." The prosecutor asked, "And what did the defendant say—" Before the prosecutor finished the question, defense counsel interrupted with an objection, citing Miranda . The court responded, "Well, the question at this point was, ‘Did you ask the defendant if the plastic bag was his?’ And he said, ‘My partner ask[ed] him.’ " To that question the court overruled the " Miranda objection" as well as defense counsel's hearsay objection, which he made immediately following the court's statement. The prosecutor continued, "And what did the defendant say?" Defense counsel did not object. Deputy Capilla replied Alvarez had said, "yeah," indicating the bag belonged to him. Deputy Soto also later testified without objection that he had asked Alvarez whether the plastic bag was his and Alvarez had responded it was. During closing argument the prosecutor cited the presence of the trash bag, along with the socks on Alvarez's hands and the surveillance footage showing Alvarez scaling a locked gate, as evidence Alvarez intended to commit a theft.

c. Alvarez's argument is forfeited

Alvarez contends the court erred in overruling his Miranda objection because the evidence was undisputed the officers had asked him an incriminating question while he was handcuffed and in police custody. At the very least, he argues, the court should have stopped proceedings and held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a custodial interrogation had occurred.3

Contrary to Alvarez's argument, the trial court overruled the objection because it was premature, not because the court found a Miranda violation had not occurred. The court observed the only question put to Deputy Capilla at the time defense counsel objected was whether Deputy Capilla had asked Alvarez if the bag was his. Because that question was limited to Capilla's statements, the court overruled the objection.

The trial court's reasoning may well have been faulty—the prosecutor had, in fact, asked the question (or, at least, most of the question) to which a Miranda objection would be properly directed. But after the court explained why it was overruling the objection and the prosecutor again asked what Alvarez had said in response to Deputy Soto's question, it was defense counsel's responsibility to reassert his objection. He did not, nor did he object when the prosecutor asked Deputy Soto the same question later at trial. Alvarez's Miranda argument is forfeited. (See Evid. Code, § 353 ; see generally People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 726, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 476 P.3d 240 ["a defendant forfeits an argument on appeal where he fails to object" at trial]; People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 301, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742 ["We have long held that a party who does not object to a ruling generally forfeits the right to complain of that ruling on appeal"; "[t]his bar ‘is but an application of the general rule that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground sought to be urged on appeal’ "].)

2. The Court's Order Requiring Testifying Witnesses To Wear Face Coverings During the COVID-19 Pandemic Did Not Violate Alvarez's Sixth Amendment Right To Confrontation
a. Relevant proceedings

Alvarez's trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a pretrial hearing, Alvarez's counsel stated his concern that allowing people to wear masks on the witness stand to protect against the spread of the virus would deprive Alvarez of his constitutional right to confrontation. Judge Mike Camacho responded witnesses might be able to drop their masks below their mouths while testifying behind a plastic shield, which had been installed on the witness stand following the COVID-19 outbreak, and return the masks to cover the tip of their nose and mouths when not speaking. After the case was transferred from Judge Camacho to Judge Jacqueline Lewis for trial, defense counsel raised his concern again, asking that witnesses testify without any facial covering. Judge Lewis stated, "Well, the court's not going to be granting that in full, but I do think having them remove their mask so they can be seen, I think momentarily, is appropriate." However, the court continued, "we do have issues in regard[ ] to safety obviously during the COVID pandemic, and we can address that further as well."

When the trial began and defense counsel again raised his objection to testifying witnesses wearing masks, the court (Judge Lewis) overruled the objection, explaining, "[I]t's not being used as a disguise for the witnesses. I do believe that, and again, I will describe this particular mask on the record, that you can still see their eyes. You can see a lot of expression in that part of their face. I understand what your request is, but I'm going to have them use the mask for protection based on the orders of the presiding judge."4

The court described on the record the mask each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • People v. Wandrey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 2022
    ...assured." ( Maryland , at p. 850.) This public policy exception "must be applied on a case-by-case basis." ( People v. Alvarez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 28, 36 ( Alvarez ).)A few California courts, considering trial conducted in the same time frame as Wandrey's, have recently issued opinions re......
  • The People v. Kelley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2023
    ...pandemic. Because there were no California published cases addressing whether the mask requirement violated the confrontation clause when Alvarez and Lopez were decided, both adopted and expanded upon the reasoning in numerous federal cases, which concluded that due to the substantial publi......
  • People v. Cuadras
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 2023
    ... ... we review de novo whether the court's decision to allow ... prospective jurors to wear masks deprived defendant of a fair ... trial or his rights under the confrontation clause. (See ... People v. Alvarez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 28, 35-36 ... ( Alvarez ).) ...          B ... Analysis ...          Defendant ... argues that the court erred by failing to require prospective ... jurors to remove their masks during voir dire. He contends ... ...
  • People v. Anderson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 2022
    ... ... court's requirement that witnesses cover their mouths and ... noses to further public safety during a global pandemic. (See ... 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.) ...          H ...          Anderson ... also argues the cumulative effect of trial errors requires ... reversal of the judgment. Putting aside Anderson's ... argument about the kill zone instruction-which ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...People v. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 155, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385, §§2:190, 6:140, 6:160, 9:40, 9:50, 9:70, 9:80 Alvarez, People v. (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 28, 290 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346, §7:10 A&M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 473, 186 Cal. Rptr. 114, §15:10 Am-Cal Investment Co. v. Sha......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Amendment to the federal Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the following procedural safeguards [ People v. Alvarez (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 28, 37, 290 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346]: • In-person testimony. • Testimony under oath. • Cross-examination. • The ability of the defendant and the tr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT