Error and/or relief
The defendant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for relief pursuant to the California Racial Justice Act of 2020. We agree he made a prima facie showing of an RJA violation. We conditionally reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
First Holding:
The Racial Justice Act (RJA) provides: The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. One way to show an RJA violation is by proving a law enforcement officer involved in the case exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing.
Authority:
PEN 745
Second Holding:
The trial court erred in concluding that an officer whose comments may have indicated improper racial consideration was not involved in the case. The statute does not require the officer to be integral to the investigation, just somehow involved. The officer’s action in interviewing the victim constitutes involvement. A prima facie showing means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. A substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.
Authority:
PEN 745
Third Holding:
The trial court acted too soon by concluding that the officer was just “chatting about child molesters” and not directing his statements against the defendant’s heritage. The proper construction of the officer’s comments needed to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. That is where the court can determine, as the trial court here aptly phrased it, whether a statement that may have some race or culturally related context actually showed bias or animus. A conditional reversal is warranted for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Authority:
Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23
People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 656