1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/5/28 - May 28, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/5/28

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 30m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the opening statements and appearances in this oral argument?

Unknown 0:00

The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five is now in session. The Honorable Terry L. Jackson presiding with Associate Justices the Honorable Gordon B. Burns and the Honorable Danny Y Chu.

Terry L. Jackson 0:14

Please receive it and good morning.

Terry L. Jackson 0:41

Good morning, everyone. Hello. I am Justice Terry L. Jackson. I'm the presiding justice for Division I for the First DCA. Joining me on the first matter is Justice Gordon Burns and Justice Danny Chu, calling the matter a people versus Robert Anthony Harrara. May I please have the appearances of the parties, starting with the appellants. And I believe the opponent is there. Okay. Um your volume?

Hilda Scheib 1:22

Um, have I lost you?

Terry L. Jackson 1:24

No no, we hear you now. Can you sub your appearance?

Hilda Scheib 1:28

Okay. All right. I um I underst I'm not sure how to get that back.

Terry L. Jackson 1:38

Um can you can you hear the court?

Hilda Scheib 1:41

Yes, I can.

Terry L. Jackson 1:42

Could you please state your appearance?

Hilda Scheib 1:44

Yes, I'm sorry, I'm Hilda Scheib representing Robert Herrera, the appellant.

Terry L. Jackson 1:49

Thank you. And here for the respondent.

Kristen Somerville 1:52

Good morning. Uh Katie Stowe from the Attorney General's Office for the People.

Terry L. Jackson 1:56

Very good. Both sides have received from the court, I I'm assuming, the um focus order that sets forth ten minutes and for each side. And am I correct? For the Honor. And for the respondent? Yes, sir. Very good. This is an appeal from a conviction following a jury trial for multiple accounts of luton lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14. The appeal, one of the issues raised is the jury was um incorrectly instructed on the counts six through nine. The second issue raised in the appeal is that the two aggravating facts that the jury did find to be true did not specify that it was a finding asked account too. And the third, that the court relied upon aggravating factors that did not get submitted to the jury.

Terry L. Jackson 2:47

I'm of course I am paraphrasing um the issues. Oh, and there was also a supplemental briefing um that the defendant argued that the residual clause of the California Rules of Court, Rule four point four two one subdivision C is unconstitutional. With that, how would the appellant like to divide its allotted ten minutes?

Hilda Scheib 3:09

I would like to argue for five minutes and reserve the remaining five.

Terry L. Jackson 3:14

If there is any Ris you know, response. Okay. Right. You're welcome to begin, Council.

Hilda Scheib 3:21

Thank you. Uh The primary issue that I'd like to address is whether the unenumerated circumstance and aggravation, that is one relating to perjury. was um correctly presented to the jury. And um

Terry L. Jackson 3:43

Counselor, were you tal referring to when the court made a finding that the that the appellant was not accountable and that the possible that the um the appellate lied? Is that what you're referring to? Or I'm referring to are you or are you referring to the specific to things that the jury did make a finding on.

What are the main issues raised about jury instructions, aggravating factors, and perjury?

Terry L. Jackson 4:03

I just want to get clarification.

Hilda Scheib 4:05

I I'm referring to the unenumerated factor, the regarding surgery, on which the court relied. without without presenting it to the jury. So the jury was presented with two uh aggravating factors in this case. One was the vulnerability of the victims and the other was um the uh violation of a position of trust. Right. Uh the court in um commenting um and the the jury found appellant Found both of those true. As to both as to both um alleged victims. The court then introduced the fact that Or what it presented as the fact that appellant had committed perjury. uh in that he had testified on his own behalf Mm. Excuse me. He had testified on his own behalf. Uh Um in in violation of section four point four two one C.

Hilda Scheib 5:05

Um a le again, allegedly in violation of four two four.

Terry L. Jackson 5:10

Council, if we can I know that you've reserved five minutes. I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, the um people did concede that that was a judicial error. So I think we're focusing on whether it's prejudicial. One, forfeiture I believe, and um two if it's prejudicial, if I'm not mistaken. Does that help us?

Hilda Scheib 5:33

Yes, thank you. It seems that there's there there's um The court Good. Trial court Um Um mixed The um the definition of perjury in four point four Four point four two one A six.