People v. Cuadras
| Decision Date | 07 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | C093607 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO ARIAS CUADRAS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
In the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic, a jury found defendant Armando Arias Cuadras guilty of premeditated murder with special circumstances; torture with great bodily injury aggravated mayhem; and first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling with a violent felony enhancement allegation. On appeal, defendant argues the judgment must be reversed because certain health and safety protocols implemented during jury selection and trial in response to the pandemic violated his constitutional rights. In particular, defendant argues (1) the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by refusing to order prospective members of the jury to remove any facial coverings (masks) during voir dire; (2) the trial court violated his rights to confront witnesses and to a fair trial by requiring members of the jury to sit in the public gallery instead of the jury box or, to the extent this contention was forfeited, that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance and (3) that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by asking defendant to wear a face mask throughout trial. Defendant also argues he is entitled to reversal based on the cumulative effect of the errors. Finding no error, we affirm.
We briefly summarize the facts underlying defendant's convictions, which are unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. In accord with the usual rules on appeal, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)
On January 23, 2013, the victim, 94-year-old Leola Shreves, was found dead, facedown in her bedroom, covered in blood. The cause of death was determined to be multiple blunt force injuries and attempted strangulation. The evidence showed she had been severely beaten before death. The precise time of death was unclear, but circumstantial evidence suggested the killing occurred late on January 18, 2013, or early in the morning on January 19, 2013.
Investigators found and collected blood samples from numerous locations around the victim's home, including a door in the kitchen, the living room wall, bedroom curtains, a mirror on the door between the bathroom and bedroom, and the wall around victim's bed. Investigators also collected scrapings from underneath the victim's fingernails.
Investigators developed a DNA profile of the suspect from the biological material collected at the crime scene, and then compared it with the profiles contained in the Combined DNA Index System database. Initially, there were no matches. However, in 2018, based on a familial DNA search, investigators identified defendant as a potential suspect. Investigators then collected a sample of defendant's DNA and compared it to the crime scene DNA evidence. Defendant's DNA was found to match blood samples collected from the crime scene, and defendant could not be excluded as a potential contributor to the material collected from the victim's fingernails.
In an interview with detectives following his arrest, defendant initially denied any knowledge of the killing. However, after being confronted with the DNA evidence, defendant eventually admitted to entering the victim's house and "stomping somebody out," although he believed it had been a man. Defendant claimed that he was drunk to the point that he barely remembered what transpired, but he recalled being "out of control."
During the interview, defendant also recalled that around the time of the killing law enforcement officers had found him-intoxicated-lying in the street near the victim's home. Yuba City police records corroborated that defendant was contacted by officers around 3:30 a.m. on January 19, 2013, near the victim's home. Medical records relating to that incident revealed defendant had a two-inch laceration on his right arm, swollen knuckles, and that he complained of a sore knee.
The Sutter County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)-count 1);[1] torture with great bodily injury (§§ 206, 12022.7-count 2); aggravated mayhem (§ 205-count 3); and first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling. (§ 459-count 4.) As to count 1, the information further alleged three special circumstance allegations: that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)) and mayhem (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(J)), and that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18).) As to count 4, the information also alleged that the burglary was a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c)(21) because "another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the [burglary]."
Defendant's trial began in October 2020, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, "there was no vaccine yet available to protect against the spread of [the virus] and the best scientific evidence demonstrated the wearing of face masks was effective at reducing the spread of the virus and the risk of infection in indoor settings." (People v. Lopez (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 227, 233 (Lopez).)
Due to the pandemic, the court imposed a variety of health and safety measures to protect the parties, court personnel, the jury, and the public during the trial. The measures included health screenings, enhanced cleaning procedures, and reconfigured seating arrangements to ensure social distancing.
For purposes of voir dire, the trial court explained that prospective jurors would be seated in the audience of the courtroom, with eight potential jurors spread out on the right side of the room and another eight spread out on the left side of the room. A second courtroom would be used to allow other prospective jurors to watch jury selection via live streaming. The trial court additionally explained that most of the jury would remain seated in the audience during trial and that the court would use audio and visual resources to allow the jury to be spaced out in the audience. To ensure defendant's right to consult with counsel was not infringed, the court permitted defendant to sit near counsel at the defense table (approximately one or two feet apart). Defense counsel did not object to the proposed seating configurations.
Except when social distancing could not be maintained, the trial court did not require witnesses or attorneys to wear masks during trial. All witnesses agreed not to wear masks while testifying. With respect to jurors, the court indicated that it would not require jurors to wear a mask, but if a juror chose to wear a mask, the court would not order the juror to remove it. The record on appeal does not clearly establish how many jurors were masked during jury selection and trial, but evidence in the record suggests that at least one juror wore a mask during at least part of the trial.
Defense counsel argued that prospective jurors should be required to remove their masks during jury selection "so we can talk to them and see their facial expressions." Defense counsel warned that it was a Fifth Amendment issue. The court rejected counsel's request, confirming that it would not order prospective jurors to take down their masks. The court acknowledged defendant's constitutional rights but noted the need to balance the health and safety of courtroom participants during the pandemic. The court noted that it had conducted another trial during the COVID pandemic and felt that the attitude and expressions of a prospective juror could be appropriately gauged when the juror was wearing a mask. The court added that it would be granting deferrals for potential jurors who were uncomfortable serving jury duty during the pandemic or who were part of a high-risk health group.
Because defendant was going to be seated at the defense table, defense counsel requested that defendant wear a mask throughout trial. The trial court expressed some general concerns with this request, but defense counsel noted that he had discussed it with defendant, who was at high risk for complications from COVID, and they agreed that defendant should wear a mask, both for his protection and the protection of others. When asked by the court, defendant confirmed that he was comfortable wearing a mask during trial. The court accepted the decision. The court also admonished the jury not to consider why an individual is or is not wearing a mask during trial.
The jury found defendant guilty on all four counts, and found all the enhancement allegations (as to counts 1 &4) true. On January 22, 2021, the court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole on count 1. The court imposed life sentences for counts 2 and 3, and the upper term of six years for count 4, but stayed the execution of each of these sentences under section 654.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant contends the trial court's refusal to order prospective members of the jury to remove any facial coverings (masks) during voir dire violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. We disagree.
A defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. (People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71, 89; accord, People v Kocontes (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 787, 870, 878-879 (Koco...
To continue reading
Request your trial