People v. Barton
| Decision Date | 17 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | D072639 |
| Citation | 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 87,52 Cal.App.5th 415 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey Scott BARTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Alana Cohen Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Jeffrey Scott Barton of five counts of forcible oral copulation ( Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2) )1 and one count of forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A)). However, the jury reached its verdict only after the trial court discharged a holdout juror, Juror No. 12, after it found she was refusing to deliberate. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Barton to a prison term of 48 years.
Barton appeals, contending, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by discharging Juror No. 12 on the basis that she was refusing to deliberate. Barton contends that the other jurors' testimony demonstrates only that Juror No. 12 disagreed with the other jurors, who found her to be unfriendly and unable to offer persuasive explanations for her opinion, not that she was unable or unwilling to deliberate. We agree. Under the heightened standard of review that applies to a trial court's decision to discharge a holdout juror for refusing to deliberate, we conclude the trial court's decision to discharge Juror No. 12 is not manifestly supported by evidence. Accordingly, we need not address Barton's other contentions on appeal and reverse the judgment.
Given our discussion on appeal is limited to the discharge of Juror No. 12, we provide only a limited review of the underlying trial.
In 1999, John Doe enrolled at the Army Navy Academy (Academy), a military boarding school in Carlsbad, California. At that time, Doe was 14 years old. Doe lived on campus in a cottage that housed multiple "cadets." Barton also lived on campus and was employed as the Director of Summer Programs. He was heavily involved with the cadets in various activities.
Barton was John Doe's homeroom teacher. After Doe enrolled, he and Barton soon developed a close relationship outside the classroom. In 2000, after an Academy staff member became suspicious about the relationship between Barton and Doe, Doe was interviewed but denied any molestation or inappropriate behavior by Barton. Around the same time, John Doe told his grandparents that Barton was abusing and molesting him. His grandparents did not take any action or report Doe's claim, telling him they thought he was falsely accusing Barton to get out of attending the Academy.
In 2013, over a decade after he left the Academy, Doe told his mother for the first time that Barton had molested him years earlier when he was a cadet. His mother called the police the next day. During an interview with the police, and then later at trial, Doe detailed multiple incidents in which Barton committed lewd acts and performed oral copulation and sodomy. Subsequent investigation discovered two additional victims in other states who testified that Barton molested them as children in the years before Barton met John Doe.
Based on those allegations, Barton was charged with 20 counts of various sexual crimes against three victims, Doe and two other boys at the Academy. At Barton's first trial, the jury found him not guilty of all but one of the counts arising from his alleged conduct regarding the other victims, and was unable to reach a verdict as to the remaining count and all the counts involving John Doe.
The People then filed an amended indictment charging Barton with 10 counts of forcible oral copulation ( § 288a, subd. (c)(2) ) and one count of sodomy by force (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A)), all involving John Doe. The indictment alleged that it was filed within one year of a report by the victim to law enforcement claiming forcible oral copulation and forcible sodomy when the victim was under the age of 18, thereby satisfying the statute of limitations. (§ 803, subd. (f).)
At the second trial, the prosecution's case was largely premised on John Doe's testimony bolstered by his earlier statements to law enforcement. In his defense, Barton presented multiple witnesses who testified they never saw Barton act inappropriately toward his students. Barton was also able to highlight many inconsistencies and impossibilities in John Doe's testimony and statements regarding Barton's conduct. John Doe also acknowledged that he filed a lawsuit against the Academy premised on Barton's conduct and was seeking $1.79 million in damages.
In closing argument, Barton's counsel focused on contesting Doe's credibility. She argued that Doe's own grandparents did not believe him. She asserted that Doe concocted the story simply to obtain a "substantial amount of money" via his lawsuit.
Jury deliberations began on Thursday, May 25, but lasted only 16 minutes before recessing in the evening for the weekend. Deliberations resumed on Tuesday, May 30, when the jury deliberated for over five hours.
Early the next morning, after almost an additional hour of deliberations, the court received a note from Juror No. 6, asking: "Is it possible to proceed with an alternate juror if we suspect that a single juror is trying to nullify the rest of the jurors?"
The parties agreed that the court should conduct an inquiry. The court first questioned Juror No. 6, who indicated that Juror No. 12 was telling the other jurors that she would not change her opinion on Barton's guilt and was not engaging in further discussions. The court then allowed counsel to question Juror No. 6. Juror No. 6 clarified that Juror No. 12 would answer direct questions but was firm in her opinion. When questioned further, Juror No. 6 revealed that Juror No. 12 maintained that she did not believe John Doe.
The court and counsel then questioned Juror No. 12. She told the court she was not trying to nullify the jury's verdict and was willing to engage in discussion. Juror No. 12 indicated she felt strongly about the evidence and disagreed with the other jurors, but had listened to the others discuss the evidence. Based on this testimony, the court found that Juror No. 12 was not refusing to deliberate and no further questioning of the jury was necessary. The court instructed all the jurors to continue to deliberate.
The next morning, the court received another note from the jury, this time stating that "Juror No. 12 refuses to deliberate." The court indicated it would question all the jurors and allow counsel to ask questions.
The court called each juror individually for questioning in descending order. Juror No. 11 believed that Juror No. 12 had made up her mind "right from the get-go." After the court's initial questioning the day before, Juror No. 12 returned to the deliberations and asked to hear two of the transcripts from trial. Toward the end of the second transcript, Juror No. 11 observed Juror No. 12 yawning and believed "she had tuned out." Juror No. 11 testified that Juror No. 12 would not talk "freely, openly" about her feelings and was either unwilling or unable to answer questions posed by the other 11 jurors. During deliberations, Juror No. 12 would share her opinion with the other jurors, but would not engage in further discussion. Juror No. 11 faulted Juror No. 12 with not being part of the "small talk" during breaks in the trial and that it seemed unusual that she was not part of the group.
Juror No. 10 agreed that Juror No. 12 was refusing to deliberate. Juror No. 12 initially appeared to be considering other opinions, but failed to give the other jurors reasons for her own opinions. Juror No. 10 further explained: Juror No. 10 explained that Explaining further, Juror No. 10 stated that the other jurors communicated to Juror No. 12 that During deliberations, Juror No. 10 brought a document to Juror No. 12 to discuss, but Juror No. 12 refused to look at the document and said Juror No. 10 was being aggressive by standing over her. The other jurors continued to ask Juror No. 12 to elaborate on or clarify her position, but Juror No. 12 would respond by declaring she was "not on trial." Juror No. 10 explained that Juror No. 12 would answer "as if she feels she clarified her position ... but it's still ... not clear." The other jurors were "unsatisfied with her response." Juror No. 10 observed that Juror No. 12 sat apart from the other jurors at breaks during trial and, once deliberations began, Juror No. 12 did not laugh and joke with other jurors about "random" topics and did not "want to participate in friendly conversations."
Juror No. 9 agreed that Juror No. 12 was refusing to deliberate and stated that whereas "eleven of us have very carefully and systematically and honestly gone through the evidence in a very logical, progressive way, ... [Juror No. 12 ] will not express why she believes the way she does, as we all have." Juror No. 9 acknowledged that Juror No. 12 would answer questions, but "[s]he kept saying the same thing." As deliberations progressed, Juror No. 12 would respond to questions by saying " " Juror No. 9 acknowledged Juror No. 12 went through her notes and the printed evidence "pretty well" at the start of deliberations, but "she commented very little on it." Juror No. 9 also expressed that J...
To continue reading
Request your trial