People v. Hernandez CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Referring to Jane Doe as the “Victim”

Defendant argues, as he did below, that referring to Jane Doe as the “victim” “undermined the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the due process clause.” The People disagree. We agree with the People. A. Background Before trial, defendant moved the trial court for an order requiring that Jane Doe be referred to as the “alleged victim” rather than the “victim.” Referring to Jane Doe as the “victim,” defendant argued, necessarily suggested that a crime occurred and “violate[d] the presumption of innocence.” The prosecutor opposed defendant’s motion. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, explaining that the “term ‘victim’ is so ingrained or used in determining how to instruct the jury, [in] how to differentiate between the person committing the crime and the victim of the crime, that taking the word out would be very difficult and possibly confusing in determining …” how to instruct the jury.

Much of the testimony offered at trial is irrelevant to the issues on appeal. For the sake of brevity and to protect Jane Doe’s privacy, our factual summary is limited.

3. During jury voir dire, the trial court referred to a…