P.

People v. Anzalone

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352·2013 Cal. LEXIS 2887·56 Cal. 4th 545·2013 WL 1501573·298 P.3d 849
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 15, 2013S192536California6,152 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Penal Code section 1149 provides, “When the jury appear they must be asked by the Court, or Clerk, whether they have agreed upon their verdict, and if the foreman answers in the affirmative, they must, on being required, declare the same.” Here, the court failed to follow this mandated procedure. The case turns on whether the error is structural error, and thus reversible per se, or trial error subject to harmless error review. For the reasons set forth below, the error was not structural. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2009, defendant Christina Marie Anzalone went to the front desk of a San Jose motel and asked the owner if she could speak to Leon Wallace, the maintenance man. The owner said that Wallace was not in and refused to let her go to Wallace’s room. Defendant accused the owner of lying and left. She returned a few minutes later, pushed over a computer, pulled a knife, and threatened to kill the owner. Police were called and defendant left.

Later that day, defendant was speaking with Kimberly Malott when she saw Kimberly’s husband, Richard. Defendant accused Richard of abusing Kimberly, approached him,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.