People v. Deleoz
| Decision Date | 30 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | H047775 |
| Citation | 80 Cal.App.5th 642,296 Cal.Rptr.3d 204 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrell Andrew DELEOZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
David W. Beaudreau, San Diego, by appointment of the Court of Appeal under the Sixth District Appellate Program, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Darrell Andrew Deleoz of involuntary manslaughter of his girlfriend, Jennifer Lee. At trial, it was undisputed that Lee had died from the consequences of a skull fracture
, but its cause was vigorously contested. The medical examiner for Santa Clara County opined that Lee had been beaten to death. The district attorney relied on the medical examiner's testimony in arguing to the jury that Deleoz beat Lee to death and thereby committed first degree murder. A defense expert disagreed with the medical examiner's assessment and opined that the injuries suffered by Lee could be consistent with a ground-level fall.
At issue in this appeal are two confidential, internal memoranda written by the office of the district attorney that Deleoz contends should have been disclosed to the defense as relevant to impeachment of the medical examiner's trial testimony. Before trial, the defense received redacted copies of the memoranda and moved for an order to disclose the unredacted portions under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( Brady ) and Penal Code section 1054.1.1 On appeal, Deleoz asks this court to conduct an in camera review of the documents to determine whether the trial court erred by denying the defense's request for disclosure of the unredacted memoranda. The Attorney General does not oppose in camera review. Furthermore, the Attorney General agrees with Deleoz's additional request to correct a typographical error in the abstract of judgment.
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that, although portions of the redacted memoranda qualify under the facts here as impeachment material under Brady , the failure to disclose them was not material to the outcome at trial. Accordingly, no Brady violation occurred. For similar reasons, we decide any failure to disclose evidence under section 1054.1 did not result in reversable error. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.
In July 2017, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information charging Deleoz with the murder of Lee. ( § 187 ; count 1.)
The jury trial began in October 2019. In an in limine motion, Deleoz moved the trial court to order the disclosure of impeachment information related to the medical examiner, Dr. Michelle Jorden. Specifically, Deleoz requested unredacted copies of two internal memoranda prepared by the office of the district attorney discussing investigations in which Dr. Jorden had been involved and which had been provided to the defense before trial, heavily redacted. The trial court denied the defense's request to disclose the unredacted portions of the memoranda, stating "I believe the redacted portions constitute work product and are not Brady or exculpatory material." We examine the trial court's ruling in more detail in our discussion, post.
In November 2019, a jury found Deleoz not guilty of first-degree murder, not guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, and guilty of the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
In January 2020, the trial court sentenced Deleoz to three years in prison and deemed the sentence satisfied based on time served. Deleoz timely appealed.
The narrow claim presented on appeal, regarding Deleoz's federal constitutional and/or state statutory rights to disclosure of the unredacted memoranda, makes it unnecessary to recount all the trial evidence. We nevertheless summarize those portions of the prosecution and defense evidence, including testimony of the medical experts, as context for our discussion of the issues on appeal.
Deleoz and Lee began dating in late 2013 or early 2014, when they lived in Southern California. In April 2015, they moved to San Jose. Lee was 30 years old and worked as a nurse.
Lee's sister and friends knew that Lee and Deleoz had relationship problems. Lee drank alcohol to excess. Lee's sister, Sarah, had previously seen a bruise on Lee's wrist; Deleoz explained he had accidentally caused the bruise while trying to get Lee into a car to go home. Another time, Deleoz called Sarah asking for help getting Lee home. Sarah and her husband drove to Hollywood and found Lee sitting on the sidewalk, drunk, while Deleoz was in his car nearby. Deleoz was embarrassed and apologized for asking them to come and help.
Lee's childhood friend Cindy Chong, who reconnected with Lee when she moved to San Jose, at one point noticed scratch marks on Lee's neck or arm as well as marks on Deleoz's neck or arm. At a dinner with two other couples in July or August 2015, Lee had taken a Benadryl
before going out and seemed to be falling asleep at the table. Deleoz insisted on taking her home, though she wanted to stay with their friends to go to karaoke. Deleoz yanked her arm to pull her from the table. After Lee's death, her nursing supervisor found a domestic violence brochure in her locker at work.
On the night of September 11, 2015, Deleoz and Lee went to a restaurant with the same two couples who had attended the dinner in July or August 2015. Everyone ate and drank a lot. The mood shifted when Lee and Deleoz began bickering. At one point, Lee fell off her chair.2 At another point, Deleoz slapped Lee on the buttocks. She did not like it and said things to anger him. Lee was crying. Lee and Deleoz left the restaurant first. Lee's friend Cindy was worried about Lee going home with Deleoz, because she had not seen it so tense between the couple before and because Deleoz appeared to be "fuming."
A resident of the apartment complex where Deleoz and Lee lived was walking his dog shortly after 10:00 p.m. when he saw the couple arguing as they entered the building. Several residents later that night heard shouting, arguing, and screaming.
The next morning, at 7:26 a.m., Deleoz called 911. Firefighters and paramedics arrived a few minutes later. Deleoz was distraught, asking " ‘Did I do this?’ " The first responders found Lee on her back in the kitchen with her head up against a cabinet. She was pale and cold to the touch and had no pulse. The first responders moved Lee's body away from the cabinet and saw blood underneath the back of her head. Lee had blood and vomit in her hair and blood near her face. Paramedics tried to resuscitate Lee using chest compressions and a defibrillator
. They pronounced her dead three minutes after they arrived.
A police officer interviewed Deleoz at the apartment; the interview was recorded and played for the jury. A second police officer accompanied Deleoz into the hallway. Deleoz sobbed intermittently and at one point spontaneously said, " ‘I may have done this.’ "
Crime scene investigators used a blood reagent to look for signs of "blood cleanup." The reagent showed presumptive positive for blood on the kitchen floor, small stains on the counter and refrigerator, and in the bathroom sink and tub. Investigators found a blood stain on a shoe and on Deleoz's shirt. DNA analysis showed that the blood found on the refrigerator and the shirt matched Lee, blood found in the bathroom matched Deleoz, and both Deleoz and Lee were possible contributors to DNA profiles in the blood found in the bathtub. The Fitbit Lee was wearing when she died registered movement up until 10:16 p.m., no movement until 12:09 a.m. when it recorded 10 steps, then no more movement.
Dr. Jorden, chief medical examiner and neuropathologist for Santa Clara County, performed the autopsy. Lee's external injuries included a deep scalp laceration
measuring one-and-three-quarter inch by one-quarter inch, a bruise on her right temple, injuries in and around the right eye, and other bruises and abrasions including on the knee, hip, forearm, cheek, buttock, and neck. Lee's internal injuries included two lacerations on the liver
, a posterior rib fracture, hemorrhage of the pancreas, and the skull injury. Dr. Jorden opined that, apart from one of the liver lacerations, Lee's internal injuries were caused by blunt trauma and were not consistent with injuries resulting from the performance of CPR.
Lee's internal head injuries
included massive bleeding beneath the scalp, a skull fracture across the crown of the head, and bruising on the left frontal lobe. The skull fracture caused an arterial bleed, which over time compressed the brain downward, causing death. As compression of the brain occurred, possible symptoms would include snoring and vomiting. Dr. Jorden's neuropathology of the brain revealed diffused axonal injuries of the nerve cells, indicating severe traumatic brain injury involving multiple strikes and a rotational motion of the head. Dr. Jorden opined that the injuries were caused by multiple blunt force head trauma and were consistent with those of a person who had been beaten to death. She concluded the manner of Lee's death was homicide. Dr. Jorden opined that Lee's injuries were not consistent with a ground-level fall for a person of that age.
On cross-examination, Dr. Jorden denied having described herself as an advocate for victims. She also denied getting angry at the police when they do not immediately accept her opinions or complaining that the police did not do their jobs. Dr. Jorden was familiar with two memoranda prepared by an assistant district attorney, one in 2012 and one in 2019, concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hernandez
...that Dr. Jorden's opinion-excluding accident as a manner of death-had provided a "'critical element of the prosecution's case.'" (Id. at p. 666.) However, because the jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter rather than murder, necessarily rejecting Dr. Jorden's opinion, ......
-
People v. Hernandez
...that Dr. Jorden's opinion-excluding accident as a manner of death-had provided a "'critical element of the prosecution's case.'" (Id. at p. 666.) However, because the jury found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter rather than murder, necessarily rejecting Dr. Jorden's opinion, ......
-
People v. Weathersby
...... motion. [ 10 ] . . . Setting. aside the timing of defendant's motion, defendant fails. to establish prejudicial error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. ( People v. Deleoz . (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 642, 658; see People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1258 [noting the federal. Constitution does not confer a general right to criminal. discovery].) That is, we see no abuse of discretion in the. trial court's determination that the ......
-
People v. Bejarano
...... different verdict with the evidence," only that the. likelihood of a different result is great enough to. "undermine[] confidence in the outcome of the. trial."' [Citation.]" ( Los Angeles Deputy. Sheriffs , 8 Cal.5th at p. 40; see also People v. Deleoz (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 642, 656.). . . "We. independently review the question whether a Brady . violation has occurred, but give great weight to any trial. court findings of fact that are supported by substantial. evidence." ( People v. ......
-
Table of cases
...56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 382, §22:160 Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 785, 268 Cal. Rptr. 753, §10:170 Deleoz, People v. (2022) 80 Cal. App. 5th 642, 296 Cal. Rptr. 3d 204, §14:50 Delgado, People v. (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 544, 214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223, §§2:10, 10:70 Delgado, People v. (1993) 5 ......
-
Documents
...3d 151. Written or recorded statements relevant due to their potential impeachment value must be produced. People v. Deleoz (2022) 80 Cal. App. 5th 642, 660, 296 Cal. Rptr. 3d 204. Raw notes reflecting a witness’ statement must be disclosed, whether or not the notes are used to produce a fo......