WPCq? v3)053aD譝N^GO53.RZ ;//BxMP,!}r3@t+,N?CyVw'c|| WYIp+$}w{+8o^mg,3y=$l`N/ H5 39%E **W[fN)O~JȉPRԫ{BR*,l#qՇIue 3S@lӸ*d79laOmoG+Kҡ?`-I"^3_dikC; 슋03UTp[LcՖcɋ.6 ؿl`N7<g˫WRS.=:4f{m;Ÿ$r "!{MBׂ ;fթgf ډ,|BBjzq&Kbv%{XA5Z2C ohq*ː<_<܇w#U@NK % 0Y N w 4  ! m# 1u: 72 0\c UA>D 0ew 0 0 0# 0 0 0y 0Dh 1 725 1!g 72 0c 0U 0r 0U 0 0 0 0E 0 0 0: 0 0 0 00 0 0x 0! 0! 05" 0" 0# 0u$ 0% 0% 0a& 0& 0' 0( 0( 0) 0>C* 0* 0y+ 0[, 0=- 0. 0/ 0/ 00 02o1 01 0:2 0Y2 0_03 0 3 04 06 B*!8 D/K8 D+z8 08 D/: 0: 06; 0; 0:< 0^ = 0<~= 1e=U6>U*U> >U0> >b> 0N>  )? 5? K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?K?^ e?hp LaserJet 1300 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,v3?:i+003|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  \  `&Times New Roman(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xFGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List?Legal 3Legal (1 1.1 1.1.1 etc.) with tabs11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1(;+$2#  0  .3    *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X75+ ` hp x 5  K)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  %&'()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`ArialSDU_46* `CG TimesSDU_27- -(O$FN7SR;26771SearchTerm4? !XXUSUS.,  _   a\8dd8ELUSIVEEXCEPTIONSTOWAIVER&FORFEITUREBARS#ak#    _    J.BradleyOConnell&PaulaRudman $ January2004  "  RevisedMay2009&Sept.2011   J.BradleyOConnell      @ _FDAP_ԀAssistantDirector    Z I.0  WELLESTABLISHEDCATEGORIESOFERRORSCOGNIZABLE    WITHOUTASPECIFICOBJECTIONORREQUESTBELOW.  (#(#   (Fy3 " 3"   32F3  0    Sufficiencyofevidence 3݌ (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Whereadefendantgoestotrial(jurytrial,benchtrial,slowplea/submission),   sufficiencyofevidenceclaimmayberaisedonappeal,regardlessofwhether  defendantmovedforacquittal(Pen.Code1118,1118.1)orotherwiseraised  sufficiencyclaimbelow: E.g.,Peoplev.Cuccia(2002)97Cal.App.4th785,  795.;݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Notethatthisappliesequallytosufficiencyofevidencetosupporta strike  orotherpriorconvictionenhancement.Peoplev.Rodriguez(1998)17Cal.4th  253,262.Contrarytopracticeofsomeappellateattorneys,itisnotnecessary  topresentsuchclaimsinanIACenvelope.;(݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3( 2F3  0    Juryinstructions(instructionsgiven&suasponteinstructions) 3( U ݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;$ 0  2F3  0` (#(#  Juryinstructionsgiven:Pen.Code1259[anyinstructiongivenreviewable  onappealifitaffecteddefendants substantialrights]. Ascertaining  whetherclaimedinstructionalerroraffectedthesubstantialrightsofthe  defendantnecessarilyrequiresanexaminationofthemeritsoftheclaim"at   leasttotheextentofascertainingwhethertheassertederrorwouldresultin ! prejudiceiferroritwas.Peoplev.Andersen(1994)26Cal.App.4th1241, " 1249,emphasisadded..;$ Q ݌#` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;u 0  2F3  0` (#(#  Suaspontedutytoinstructonmattersopenlyandcloselyconnectedwiththe $  case,includingelementsofthecharge,elementsoftheoriesofliability,and %!! lesserincludedoffensesanddefensesifsubstantialevidencewouldsupport &"" verdictonthosetheories.E.g.,Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470, '## [elements];Peoplev.Breverman(1998)19Cal.4th142,154162[lesser ($$ includedoffenses];Peoplev.Prettyman(1996)14Cal.4th248[ target )%% offenseforany naturalandprobableconsequencestheoryofliability].;u ݌*&&` (#` (# Ќ  ""  0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Evenifasubjectdoesnotcomewithinacourtssuasponte +'' instructionalobligations, ifacourtdoesundertaketoinstructona  particularpoint,itmustdosocorrectly. Defendantmaychallenge  incorrectormisleadinginstructions,regardlessofwhetherthose  instructionsotherwisewouldhavecomewithinsuasponteduties.  Peoplev.Castillo(1997)16Cal.4th1009,1015;Peoplev.Prettyman  (1996)14Cal.4th248,270. Evenifthecourthasnosuasponteduty   toinstructonaparticularlegalpoint,whenitdoeschoosetoinstruct,   itmustdosocorrectly.Castillo,supra,16ZD%Cal.4th#ZD%#Ԁatp.1015.݌  (# (# Ќ  " 3"   3L2F3  0    Excessofjurisdiction.Errors inexcessofjurisdictionmayberaisedandcorrected   atanytime,evenifnotpreservedattrial.(Indeed,somesuch jurisdictionalerrors   mayevenberaisedonapostappealhabeaspetition,notwithstandingtheusuallimits   barringuseofhabeasasasecondappeal.(SeeInreHarris(1993)5Cal.4th813.) 3Ly݌ (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Unauthorizedsentence,Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,354: legalerror   resultinginanunauthorizedsentencecommonlyoccurswherethecourt   violatesmandatoryprovisionsgoverningthelengthofconfinement.Common   categoriesof unauthorizedsentenceclaimsinclude##Ԁ654errors,and   violationsofcriteriaforlegalapplicabilityofenhancementandotherrules   governingstayingorpartialstayingoftermsorenhancements.E.g.,Inre   Harris##(1989)49Cal.3d131,134fn.2(claimthattwoprior seriousfelonies   werenot broughtandtriedseparately,asrequiredtosupportseparate   enhancementsunderPen.Code667(a)).# #;݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Competencytostandtrial/Pen.Code1368.Peoplev.Castro(2000)78   Cal.App.4th1402,1415;Peoplev.SuperiorCourt##% [ %[(Marks)##Ԁ(1991)1Cal.4th   56,#d#7071;##Peoplev.Hale##Ԁ(1988)44Cal.3d531,541#o#.;݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ; 0  2F3  0` (#(#  Impositionofenhancementnotpleaded.Peoplev.Mancebo(2002)27Cal.4th   735,749fn.7.; = ݌! ` (#` (# Ќ  # #" 3"   3!2F3  0    Statuteoflimitations,whereuntimelinessisevidentonthefaceoftheaccusatory #  pleading.Peoplev.Williams(1999)21Cal.4th335,339340. 3!!݌$ (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;##0  2F3  0` (#(#  Thisexceptiontoforfeitureappliesonly whenthechargingdocument % !! indicatesonitsfacethattheactionistimebarred.Williamsat341.However, & "" thegeneralforfeitureprinciplewillstillapplywheretheaccusatorypleading ' ## appearstimelyonitsface.Wherethepleadingappears faciallysufficient ( $$ andthelimitationsissueturnsonfactualorotherevidentiarymatters(suchas ) %% wherethepleadingallegesfactswhichwouldtollthestatute),thelimitations * && claimmustbelitigatedattrial,andafailuretoassertitwillresultinforfeiture. + '' _#"#Peoplev.ԀThomas(2007)146#&#Cal.App.4thԀ1278,12871289.;##P#݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3'2F3  0      Facialunconstitutionalityofprobationcondition.󀀀InreSheenaK.(2007)40#'#Cal.4th  875.Aclaimthataprobationconditionis faciallyvagueandoverbroador  otherwiseunconstitutionalonitsfacepresentsapurequestionoflaw.Becausesuch  aclaimdoesnotturnonthespecificfactsanddoesnotrequiredevelopmentofthe   recordbeforethetrialcourt,itdoesnotimplicatethepoliciesunderlying   waiver/forfeiturerules. 3''݌ (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;*0  2F3  0` (#(#  Thisdoesnotmeanthatallconstitutionalchallengestoprobationtermsare   exemptfromwaiver/forfeiture.Constitutionalsentencingclaimswhichare   moredependentuponspecificcircumstancesofcaseandsentencingrecord   maystillbeforfeitedifnotraisedatsentencing.SheenaK.at888889.;**݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  #(# II.0  GENERALRULE:MOSTERRORSREQUIREANOBJECTIONINTRIAL  COURTINORDERTORAISECLAIMONAPPEAL. (#(# " 3"   3-2F3  0    Generalprinciple: Theforfeituredoctrineisawellestablishedproceduralprinciple  that,withcertainexceptions,anappellatecourtwillnotconsiderclaimsoferrorthat  couldhavebeenbutwerenotraisedinthetrialcourt.[Citations.]#i.#Strongpolicy  reasonssupportthisrule:Itisbothunfairandinefficienttopermitaclaimoferror  onappealthat,iftimelybroughttotheattentionofthetrialcourt,couldhavebeen  easilycorrectedoravoided.[Citations.]Peoplev.Stowell(2003)#/#Ԁ31Cal.4th1107,  1114. 3- .݌(#(# Ќ  #O1#" 3"   322F3  0    #-2#Mostcommoncategoriespresentingwaiverproblems: 32L2݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3232F3  0    Errorsinadmissionorexclusionofevidence(Evid.Code353,354). 323_3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3;42F3  0    Sentencingerrorrelatedtoadequacyofcourtsreasons(orfailuretostatereasons)for ! adiscretionarysentencechoice.Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331[reasonsfor " uppertermorconsecutivesentences];Peoplev.Stowell(2003)31Cal.4th1107 # [failuretomakeexpressfindingsforHIVtestingofsexoffender]. 3;4h4݌$ (#(# Ќ  "; "  ;60  2F3  0` (#(#  Failuretoprovidea tentativedecisionbeforepronouncingsentencedoesnot % ! excuseScottdutytoobjecttoanydefectsinsentencingreasons.Peoplev. &!" Gonzalez(2003)31Cal.4th745.;66݌'"#` (#` (# Ќ  "; "  ;G80  2F3  0` (#(#  SeealsoPeoplev.Welch(1993)5Cal.4th228[necessityofobjectionto (#$ preservechallengetoprobationconditions].;G8t8݌)$%` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "   392F3  0    Prosecutorialmisconduct.Peoplev.Green(1980)27Cal.3d1,27;e.g.,Peoplev. +&' Brown(2003)31Cal.4th518,553554;Peoplev.Sapp(2003)31Cal.4th240,279. 399݌(#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3(;2F3  0    Pinpointinstructions(i.e.,failuretogiveinstructionsdeemedoutsideacourtssua  sponteinstructionalduties).E.g.,Peoplev.Saille(1991)54Cal.3d1103,1120;  Peoplev.Middleton(1997)52Cal.App.4th19.Suchinstructionsrelatingcategories  ofevidence(e.g.,eyewitnesstestimony,intoxication)toelementsofoffenseor   defensetheoryor clarifyingoramplifyingapointcoveredbycorrectgeneral   instructionsmustberequested.Peoplev.Guiuan(1998)18Cal.4th558,570. 3(;U;݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3S>2F3  0    Mosterrorsduringjuryselection. 3S>>݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3 "   32?2F3  0    Mostother courtroomerrors.E.g.,shackling,misconductofcourtpersonnelor   spectators,etc. 32?_?݌ (#(# Ќ  III.0  OVERCOMINGWAIVERCLAIMS!ADEQUACYOFOBJECTIONBELOW  TOPRESERVEISSUE. (#(# " 3 "   3A2F3  0    Timing/inliminemotion.Wheredefendantraisesevidentiaryissueinaninlimine  motionandcourtrulesonit,defendantgenerallydoesnotneedtorenewthat  objectionduringtrialtopreserveissue.Peoplev.Morris(1991)53Cal.3d152,189;  accordPeoplev.Crittenden(1994)9Cal.4th83,127;Peoplev.Rowland(1992)4  Cal.4th238,264fn.3;Peoplev.Felix(1999)70Cal.App.4th426,430431. 3A4A݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3C2F3  0    Generalprinciplesinassessingsufficiencyofobjection: 3CC݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;D0  2F3  0` (#(#  Anobjectionissufficientifitfairlyapprisesthetrialcourtoftheissueitis  beingcalledupontodecide.[Citations.]Inacriminalcase,theobjectionwill  bedeemedpreservedif,despiteinadequatephrasing,therecordshowsthatthe  courtunderstoodtheissuepresented..[Citations.]Peoplev.Scott(1978)21  Cal.3d284,290[objectionstorelevance,intrusiveness,and demeaning   natureofmedicaltestondefendantsoughtbyprosecutiondeemedsufficient ! topreservesearchandseizure,selfincrimination,andprivacyclaims].;DD݌"` (#` (# Ќ    (Fyy ";"  ;H0  2F3  0` (#(#  ݀ Whilenoparticularformofobjectionisrequired[citation]#@I#,theobjection # mustbemadeinsuchawayastoalertthetrialcourttothenatureofthe $  anticipatedevidenceandthebasison% Y #I#%YJwhichexclusionissought,andtoafford % ! thePeopleanopportunitytoestablishitsadmissibility.[Citations.]#J#[]....#K#ԀThe &!" circumstancesinwhichanobjectionismadeshouldbeconsideredin '"# determiningitssufficiency.#K#[Citations.]  Peoplev.Williams(1988)44Cal.3d (#$ 883,906907 #L#Ԁ[whereprosecutorsstatementshadalreadyinformedcourtof )$% natureof othercrimesevidence,defensecounsels relevanceobjection *%& deemedsufficienttoputcourtonnoticetodetermineadmissibilityunderEvid. +&' Code1101&352standardsforotheroffenses];seealsoPeoplev.Clark  (1992)3Cal.4th41,123124[undertotalityofcircumstances,counsels  relevanceandEvid.Code352objectionsdeemedsufficienttoraiseEvid.  Code1101objection].;HH݌` (#` (# Ќ  IV.0  FORFEITUREANDFEDERALIZATION  (#(# ";"  ;[P0  2F3  0` (#(#  ݇Oneofthemostfrequentlyrecurringforfeiture/waiverquestionsiswhether   trialcounselsobjectiononastatelawgroundissufficienttoobtainappellate   reviewofarelatedfederalconstitutionalclaim.Especiallyintheevidentiary    area,numerousCaliforniadecisionshavedeemedvariousfederalclaims(e.g.,   dueprocess,confrontation,righttocounsel,etc)forfeitedwheretrialcounsel   framedtheobjectiononlyintraditionalstatelawterms(e.g.,relevance,   hearsay,etc.).See,e.g.,Peoplev.Barnett(1998)17Cal.4th1044,1119fn.   54;Peoplev.Rodrigues(1994)8Cal.4th1060,1116fn.20;Peoplev.Ashmus   (1991)54Cal.3d932,972fn.10.However,tworecentCaliforniaSupreme  Courtdecisionshavepartiallyrelaxedthoselimitations.;[PP݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;T0  2F3  0` (#(#  Yeoman: Objectiononparallelstatelawground.Anobjectiononastatelaw  groundsissufficienttopreserveaparallelfederalconstitutionalclaim  governedbythesamestandard:;T!U݌` (#` (# Ќ  ݀""  V0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  [N]ousefulpurposeisservedbydecliningtoconsideronappeala  claimthatmerelyrestates,underalternativelegalprinciples,aclaim  otherwiseidenticaltoonethatwasproperlypreservedbyatimely  motionthatcalleduponthetrialcourttoconsiderthesamefactsandto  applyalegalstandardsimilartothatwhichwouldalsodeterminethe  claimraisedonappeal.Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31Cal.4th93,117  118[WheelermotionsufficienttopreserveBatsonclaimaswell].VV݌  (# (# Ќ  ""  Z0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Thesamerationaleshouldapplyinothersituationsofparallelstateand " federaldoctrines(e.g.,ArandaBruton).)Z4Z݌# (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;s[0  2F3  0` (#(#  Partida:Federalclaimreviewablewhereitonlyrepresents consequences % ! oferroneousrulingonstatelawobjection.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourt &!" expandedupontheYeomanrationaleinPeoplev.Partida(2005)37Cal.4th '"# 428.Attrial,thedefensehadobjectedtogangevidenceonEvid.Code352 (#$ grounds.Onappeal,Partidaarguedthattheasserted352error(i.e., )$% admissionofevidencesubstantiallymoreprejudicialthanprobative)also *%& amountedtoafederaldueprocessviolation.TheSupremeCourtreiterated +&' thatadefendant maynotarguethatthecourtshouldhaveexcludedthe  evidenceforareasondifferentfromhistrialobjection.ButtheCourt  continued, however,...defendantmaymakeaverynarrowdueprocess  argumentonappeal.Hemayarguethattheassertederrorinadmittingthe  evidenceoverhisEvidenceCodesection352#_#Ԁobjectionhadtheadditional  legalconsequenceofviolatingdueprocess.Id.at435,emphasisadded.;s[[݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  #`#""  a0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Partidaemphasizedthatthe narrowdueprocessargumentdidnot   alterthegroundsforexclusionurgedbelowortheanalysisgoverning   thetrialcourtsrulingontheadmissibilityoftheevidence.Instead,the   dueprocessclaimconcernedonlythe legalconsequencesofthetrial   courtserrorinoverrulingthe352objection!whichwasaquestion   forthereviewingcourt,ratherthanthetrialcourt.TheCourt   distinguisheditsearliercasesfindingstatelawobjectionsinsufficient   topreservefederalclaimsasonlybarringarguments thatthe  constitutionalprovisionsrequiredthetrialcourttoexcludetheevidence  forareasonnotincludedintheactualtrialobjection.Partidaat437  438.Butadefendantmaystill argue[that]anadditionallegal  consequenceoftheassertederrorinoverrulinghisstatelawobjection  wasafederaldueprocessviolation.aa݌ (# (# Ќ  ""  "g0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Partidaeffectivelyallowsappellatereviewofthefederalconstitutional  implicationsofarulingonastatelawobjectionwherethefederalclaim  doesnotaltertheanalysisofwhetherthetrialcourterred,butonly  concernsthereviewingcourtsanalysisoftheeffect!the legal  consequence!ofthaterror."gOg݌ (# (# Ќ  ""  i0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Subsequentcaseshaveadheredtothatdistinction.E.g.,Peoplev.  Lewis(2006)39Cal.4th970,990fn.5(allowingreviewoffederal   argumentsthat merelyassertthatthetrialcourtsactoromission, ! insofaraseachwaswrongongroundsactuallypresentedtothatcourt, " hadtheadditionallegalconsequenceofviolatingtheConstitution). # AslatercaseshavephrasedthePartidarule,thereisnoforfeiture $  wherethefederalclaimsimplyaddsa constitutionalglosstothe %!! sameclaimposedtothetrialjudgethroughthestatelawobjection. &"" Peoplev.Boyer(2006)38Cal.4th412,441,fn.17#Om#.ii݌'## (# (# Ќ  ""  m0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Afederalclaim(or,forthatmatter,adifferentstatelawclaim)will )%% stillbedeemedforfeitediftheerrorcomponentoftheclaim *&& requiresadifferentanalysisthanthestatelawobjectionraised +'' below .Forinstance,because aCrawford[confrontationclause]  analysisisdistinctlydifferentthanthatofageneralizedhearsay  problem,ahearsayobjectionbelowisnotsufficienttoobtainappellate  reviewofaconfrontationclaim.Peoplev.Chaney(2007)148  Cal.App.4th772,777780.Thesamegoesforattemptstoarguea  differentfederalclaim,subjecttodifferentsubstantivestandards,than   theoneurgedbelow.E.g.,Peoplev.Lewis(2008)43Cal.4th415,444   445(5thAmen.Mirandaobjectionbelowdidnotallowreviewof4th   Amen.McLaughlinclaimthatstatementswereobtainedthrough   excessivedelayinjudicialdeterminationofprobablecause);seealso    Peoplev.Zamudio(2008)43Cal.4th327,354( objectiondidnotfairly   informthetrialcourtortheprosecutionthatdefendantwasobjecting   onworkproductgrounds).m n݌  (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;Xt0  2F3  0` (#(#   New! 󀀀Questionableefficacyof mantramotionsfederalizingobjections.  Inrecentyears,manytrialattorneyshaveattemptedtoforestallwaiver  problemsbyfilingsocalled mantramotionspurportingtofederalizealltrial  objectionsinadvance.Suchamotionasksthatallobjectionsbedeemedmade  onfederalconstitutional,aswellasstatelawgrounds(andtypicallyincludes  alistofconstitutionalprovisionswhichcouldpotentiallybeimplicatedduring  trial,includingdueprocess,confrontation,etc.).Thoughthe mantratactic  iscertainlyanunderstandableone,recentCaliforniaSupremeCourtcases  indicatethattrialandappellatecounselshouldnotcountonablanketpretrial  requestsuchasthistopreserveafederalclaimwhichisgovernedbya  differentstandardthantheexplicitlyassertedstatelawobjection.;Xtt݌` (#` (# Ќ  ""  _y0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Inatleasttworecentcapitalcases,theSupremeCourthasfoundcertain  federalclaimsforfeited,despitetrialcounselsfilingofapretrial  pleadingassertingthatallobjectionsandmotionswerealsomadeunder   assortedfederalconstitutionalprovisions.Peoplev.Ervine(2009)47 ! Cal.4th745,783;Peoplev.Redd(2010)  48Cal.4th691,730 #{#fn.19. " Likemost mantramotions,theErvineandReddpretrialrequests # includedalitanyofpotentialfederalgrounds(e.g., 4th,5th,6th,8th, $  and14thAmendment[s](Ervine)).ButtheSupremeCourtfoundthat %!! suchapreemptivemotiondoesnotsatisfythepurposeoftherule. &""  #|#Thisstandardofspecificityisnotsatisfiedbyofferingageneric '## laundrylistofpotentially% _ #}#%_~~% ` %`~applicableconstitutionalprovisions ($$ untetheredtoanyparticularpieceofevidence.Ervineat783.Ervine )%% andRedd#~#Ԁindicatethat a mantramotionwilllikelynotpreserve *&& aconstitutionalclaimoutsidethePartidasituationofacongruence +'' ofstate/federalstandards ._yy݌ (# (# Ќ  "ir"  ir0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2F3  0 (# (#  Forexample,Reddfoundaconfrontationclaimforfeited  becauseitinvokeddifferentstandardsthanthehearsayobjection  assertedattrial. Therefore,defendant'snewobjectionon  appealisnotmerelyaconstitutional#_# ##gloss#I###uponanobjection  raisedbelow#׃#Ԁ....Redd,48Cal.4that730fn.19.ir݌ (#(# Ќ  ""  0  0` (#(#2F3  0 ` (#` (#  Atbest,suchabidforfederalizationofallclaimswillonlybeeffective   incaseswherethetrialjudgeagreestotherequest,and,eventhere,it   isquestionablehowmuchthetacticcanaccomplish.Intworecent    cases,theSupremeCourtfoundcertainconstitutionalclaimspreserved   wherethetrialcourthadexplicitlygrantedmotionsthat ##alldefense   counsel'sobjectionsattrialbedeemedobjectionsunderthe   ConstitutionsofboththeStateofCaliforniaandtheUnitedStates.#J#   #A#Peoplev.Vines(2011)51Cal.4th830,865##Ԁ&fn.15;accordPeoplev.  McKinnon(Aug.22,2011)__Cal.4th__,2011WL3658915at*62.  But,atleastinMcKinnon, defensecounseldidnoturgethatdifferent  legalstandardsgovernedtheconstitutionalandnonconstitutional  aspectsofhisobjections##.Becauseafederalconstitutionalclaim  invokingtheidenticalstandardasthestatelawobjectionwouldhave  beencognizableanywayunderPartida,itisnotclearthatthe mantra  motionactuallypreservedanyissueswhichwouldotherwisehave  beendeemedforfeited.݌ (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;d0  2F3  0` (#(#  Additionalcaveat!necessityofexplicitfederalizationatappellatelevel.󀀀The  YeomanandPartidarationalesapplyonlytowhetherastatelawobjectionin  thetrialcourtisnonethelesssufficienttoallowreviewondirectappealofa  federalconstitutionalclaimarisingoutofthesameerror.Thepartial  relaxationoftheforfeitureruleinthiscontext shouldnotbeconfusedwith    exhaustionofthefederalbasesofaclaimforpurposesoffuturefederal ! habeasreview. Inotherwords,evenifYeomanandPartidamaysometimes " excuseafailuretoexplicitly federalizeaclaimatthetrialcourtlevel, #   appellatecounselmuststillexplicitlystatethefederalconstitutionalbasis $  foraclaiminhisorherbriefsintheCourtofAppealandinanypetition %!! forreviewtotheCaliforniaSupremeCourt .SeeReesev.Baldwin(2004) &"" 541U.S.27(petitiontoOregonSupremeCourtdeemedinsufficienttoexhaust ' ## 6thAmen./Stricklandineffectiveassistanceclaim,wherethepetitioncitedonly ( $$ Oregoncaseson inadequatecounsel).Toavoidanydoubtonthesubject,  ) %% appellatebriefsandpetitionsshouldexplicitlycitefederalconstitutional * && provisionsand/orU.S.SupremeCourtorotherfederalcases,astoeach +'' claimwithapotentialfederalconstitutionaldimension .;d݌` (#` (# Ќ  V.0  OVERCOMINGWAIVERCLAIMS!MISCELLANEOUSGROUNDSFOR  URGINGCOURTTOEXCUSEOROVERLOOKLACKOFOBJECTION.(#(#  " 3"   32F3  0    Generalthoughts:Thevariousgroundslistedbelowarethe elusivewaiverbusters   ofthetitleofthesematerials.Thesegroundsaremuchlesscommonlyinvokedthan   thevariousrulesnotedintheprecedingsections.But,asreflectedinthehandfulof   recentcitations,thesegroundshavenotentirelydisappearedfromthecaselaw.   However,thepublishedcaselawshowslittleconsistencyinappellatecourts   willingnesstooverlookapparentdefectsinobjectionsonthesegrounds.Whena   courtisinterestedingettingtothemeritsofanissue,itwillfrequentlyinvokeseveral   oftheseoverlappinggrounds(e.g., purequestionoflaw, constitutionalissue,and   appellatecourtsdiscretion). 3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3͘2F3  0    Changeinthelaw.Theforfeiturerulewillgenerallynotbeapplied whenthe  pertinentlawchangedsounforeseeablythatitisunreasonabletoexpecttrialcounsel  tohaveanticipatedthechange.[Citations.]Peoplev.Black(2007)41Cal.4th799,  810812( BlackII).InBlackII,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtappliedthat  exceptiontoforfeituretothefailuretoraiseaSixthAmendmentchallengetothetrial  courtsfindingofaggravatingfactorsinapreBlakelysentencinghearing. Priorto  Blakely,itwaswidelyassumedinCaliforniathattheSixthAmendment/Apprendi  jurytrialrightappliedonlytoadjudicationofenhancements,butnottoajudges  findingsofaggravatingfactorsforanupperterm.Consequently,defensetrial  counselsfailuretoanticipateBlakelydidnotforfeitappellatereviewoftheclaim.  Seealso,e.g.,ԀPeoplev.Turner(1990)50Cal.3d668,703.## 3͘݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;l0  2F3  0` (#(#  Thisrationaleappliesevenmorestronglywhenappellatecaselawattimeof  trialwouldhaverequiredtrialcourttorejecttheclaim.Becausethatcaselaw   wouldhavebeenbindingonthetrialjudge,anyattempttoasserttheclaimin ! thetrialcourtwouldhavebeenafutileexercise(implicatingthe futility " exceptiondiscussedbelow).Peoplev.Sandoval(2007)41Cal.4th825,837 # fn.4(Blakelyclaimnotforfeitedwheresentencingoccurredduringinterval $  betweenBlackIandCunningham;Blakelyobjectionwouldhavebeenfutile %!! sincethenextantBlackIopinionwouldhaverequiredtrialcourttorejectit).;l݌&""` (#` (# Ќ    (Fyy " 3"   3ۢ2F3  0     Fundamentalconstitutionalrights.Lackofobjectiondoesnotforfeitrighttoappeal ($$ deprivationof certainfundamentalconstitutionalrights,suchasrighttojurytrial )%% anddoublejeopardy(eventhoughitmaybarrighttoraiserelatedclaimsofviolations *&& ofstatestatutoryorotherproceduralrules): Adefendantisnotprecludedfrom +'' raisingforthefirsttimeonappealaclaimassertingthedeprivationofcertain  fundamental,constitutionalrights.[Citations.]#٤#Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,  276277;##Ԁaccord,Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,592,589fn.5;People  v.Valladoli(1996)13Cal.4th590,606. 3ۢ݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;T0  2F3  0` (#(#   Constitutionalissues.Someoldercasesspeakmoregenerallyofan   appellatecourtsauthoritytoreview constitutionalclaimsnotraisedbelow,   includingconstitutionalityofstatute.Halev.Morgan(1978)22Cal.3d388,   394;Peoplev.Brown(1996)42Cal.App.4th461,471;Peoplev.Marchand   (2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1061.;T݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  However,courtsinvokethatmaximonlysparingly.Thegeneralruleisthat   mostconstitutionalclaimsarestillsubjecttowaiver/forfeiturerules(though,   asnotedbelow,theconstitutionalcharacterofaclaimmayprovideareason   foranappellatecourttoexerciseitsdiscretiontooverlookforfeitureinsome  instances.;݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3U2F3  0    Purequestionoflawcognizableonappealdespiteinadequateobjection.Yeoman(the  recentSupremeCourtcasedeemingastate Wheelermotionsufficienttopreserve  federalBatsonclaim)alsonoted thewellestablishedprinciplethatareviewing  courtmayconsideraclaimraisingapurequestionoflawonundisputedfacts.  [Citations.]Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31Cal.4th93,118;seealso,e.g.,Peoplev.  Gutierrez(2003)112Cal.App.4th1463,1471fn.5;Peoplev.Murphy(2003)112  Cal.App.4th546,564. 3U݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32F3  0    Appellatecourtsinherentdiscretiontoconsideraclaimnotadequatelypreserved  below(exceptevidentiaryclaims)(the Williamsfootnote): 3݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;00  2F3  0` (#(#  Surely,thefactthatapartymayforfeitarighttopresentaclaimoferrorto   theappellatecourtifhedidnotdoenoughtoprevent[]orcorrect[]'the ! claimederrorinthetrialcourt[citation]doesnotcompeltheconclusionthat, " byoperationofhisdefault,theappellatecourtisdeprivedofauthorityinthe # premises.Anappellatecourtisgenerallynotprohibitedfromreachinga $  questionthathasnotbeenpreservedforreviewbyaparty.([Citation];see, %!! e.g.,Peoplev.Berryman(1993)6Cal.4th1048,10721076[][passingona &"" claimofprosecutorialmisconductthatwasnotpreservedforreview];People '## v.Ashmus(1991)54Cal.3d932,975976[][same].)Indeed,ithasthe ($$ authoritytodoso.[Citation]....Therefore,itisfreetoactinthematter. )%% [Citation]Whetherornotitshoulddosoisentrustedtoitsdiscretion. *&& [Citation]Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,161fn.6;emphasis +'' added.;0]݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;ݶ0  2F3  0` (#(#  InWilliams,theSupremeCourtupheldanappellatecourtsdiscretionary  authoritytoreviewthesoundnessofatrialcourtsreasonsfordismissinga   strike,eventhoughtheprosecutorhadfailedtoobjecttothosereasons.But  (asreflectedbyWilliamscitationtocasesreachingprosecutorialmisconduct   claims),theprincipleappliesequallytoreviewofinadequatelypreserved   defenseobjections.See,e.g.,Peoplev.Ellison(2003)111Cal.App.4th1360,   13701371[jurisdictionofjudgetopasssentencewheresentencing   proceedingshadbegunbeforedifferentjudge];Peoplev.Abbaszadeh(2003)   106Cal.App.4th642[judgesvoirdirecommentsinvitingjurorstomakeup   someotherreasonforexcusalratherthanadmittoracialprejudiceagainst   defendant].;ݶ ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  But,pertheWilliamsfootnote,thereisnosuchdiscretionwithrespectto  evidentiaryclaims,becauseEvid.Code353and354specificallyprohibited  reviewofevidentiaryobjectionsnotraisedbelow.Peoplev.Williams(1998)  17Cal.4th148,161fn.6.;ջ݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;ɽ0  2F3  0` (#(#  Ofallthewaiverexceptionsdiscussedhere,the inherentdiscretionprinciple  recognizedintheWilliamsfootnotepotentiallyhasthemostfarreaching  implications.Therearenoclearlydefinedstandardsgoverninghowandwhen  anappellatecourtshouldexerciseitsdiscretiontooverlookawaiver,andno  consistentpatternemergesoutoftherelativelyfewcases(publishedand  unpublished)referringtothatdiscretion.Somecases(bothpreandpost  Williams)simplynotethe importanceofconstitutionalclaimsand issuesof  publicpolicyasgroundsforexercisingdiscretiontoreachthemerits.Cf.  Halev.Morgan(1978)22Cal.3d388,394;Peoplev.Brown(1996)42  Cal.App.4th461,471;Peoplev.Marchand(2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1061.;ɽ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;q0  2F3  0` (#(#  Morerecently,theSupremeCourtcommentedthatappellatecourtsmost " frequentlyinvokethisdiscretiontooverlookaforfeiture whereaforfeited # claiminvolvesanimportantissueofconstitutionallaworasubstantialright $  [citations]or wheretheapplicabilityoftheforfeitureruleisuncertainorthe %!! defendantdidnothaveameaningfulopportunitytoobjectattrial[citations]. &"" InreSheenaK.(2007)40Cal.4th875,887fn.7.;q݌'##` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3l2F3  0    Prejudicenotcurablebyadmonition.Prosecutorialorjudicialmisconductis )%% reviewablewithoutobjectionwheretheprejudiceissogreatthatitcouldnthavebeen *&& curedbyanadmonition.Peoplev.Green(198027Cal.3d1,27;seee.g.,Peoplev. +'' Johnson(1981)121Cal.App.3d94,103104[prejudicialprosecutorialmisconduct];  Peoplev.Perkins(2003)109Cal.App.4th1562,1567[prejudicialjudicial  misconduct]. 3l݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3D2F3  0    Futility(e.g.,wherecourthasalreadyoverruledsimilarobjections).E.g.,Peoplev.  Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,820[prosecutorialmisconduct];Peoplev.Abbaszadeh   (2003)106Cal.App.4th642,648649[judicialmisconduct].(Asnotedearlier,an   objectionisalsodeemed futilewherethenextantcaselawwouldhaverequiredthe   trialcourttorejectitunderstaredecisisrules.Peoplev.Sandoval(2007)41Cal.4th   825,837fn.4 3Dq݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3<2F3  0    Closelybalancedcaseandmisconductmaterialtotheverdict.󀀀 .... Misconductof   theprosecutingattorneymaynotbeassignedaserroronappealifithasnotbeen   assignedatthetrialunless,thecasebeingcloselybalancedandpresentinggrave   doubtofthedefendant'sguilt,themisconductcontributedmateriallytotheverdictor  unlesstheharmfulresultsofthemisconductcouldnothavebeenobviatedbyatimely  admonitiontothejury.....[Citation.]Peoplev.Bryden(1998)63Cal.App.4th159,  182,emphasisadded.  3<i݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32F3  0    Prosecutorsduty.Prosecutorhasequaldutytoensurethatlawisobeyed.Peoplev.  Abbaszadeh(2003)106Cal.App.4th642,649. 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32F3  0    Lackofopportunitytoobject.E.g.,InreKhonsavahnS.(1998)67Cal.App.4th532,  536537[ itappearscounselherewasutterlysurprisedbythecourt'sruling[requiring  AIDStesting]andhadlittleopportunitytoreact]. 34݌(#(# Ќ  ##";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  #H#Butcf.##Peoplev.Gonzalez(2003)31Cal.4th745[failuretogive tentative  sentencingdecisionordinarilydoesntexcuseobjectionrequirement].;g݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3!2F3  0    Discretiontoconsidermeritsofconstitutionalissuetoforestallhabeaspetitionon   sameissue. Amatternormallynotreviewableupondirectappeal,butwhichis ! shownbytheappealrecordtobevulnerabletohabeascorpusproceedings##basedupon " constitutionalgroundsmaybeconsideredupondirectappeal##.[Citations.]Peoplev. # Norwood(1972)26Cal.App.3d148,1##53;#/#Peoplev.ԀBlanco(1992)10##Cal.App.4th $  1167,1173.## 3!N݌%!!(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Similarprinciple. Toforestallanylaterchargeofineffectiveassistance, '## reviewingcourtmayconsidermeritsofclaimnotpreservedbelow.E.g., ($$ Peoplev.Cox(1991)53Cal.3d618,682.;݌)%%` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "   3N2F3  0    Finalthought(whennothingelsequitefits):?+ ` hp x X?  Anappellatecourtmaynote_errors +'' notraisedbythepartiesifjusticerequiresit. [Citations.]Peoplev.Norwood  (1972)26_Cal.App_.3d148,152. 3N{݌(#(# Ќ  VI.0  STRATEGICREASONSFORINVOKINGTHESEWAIVERAVOIDANCE  GROUNDS. (#(# " 3 "   32F3  0    Towininstatecourt.Ifyouvemanagedtopersuadethejusticesonthesubstantive   issue!i.e.,thattheresbeenaninjusticeinthiscase!givethemawaytoruleinyour   favorontheapparentproceduralbar. 3,݌ (#(# Ќ  "; "  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Additionally,preservingtherighttoarguethefederalconstitutional   consequencesofaruling(e.g.,underPeoplev._Partida_(2005)37Cal.4th428   (seePartIV,ante))allowsyoutoargueprejudiceunderamuchmorefavorable   standard.Thus,ifframedonlyinstatelawterms(hearsay,_Evid_.Code352,   etc.),anerroneousrulingonadmissionofcertainevidenceorallegedinstance  ofprosecutorialmisconductwillbesubjecttothestateWatsonstandard,  requiringthedefensetoshowa reasonableprobabilitythatthedefense  wouldhaveobtainedamorefavorableverdict,wereitnotfortheerror.But,  ifthatsameevidenceorprosecutorialerrorisdeemedafederalconstitutional  violation,theChapmanstandardwillapply,requiringthestatetoprovethat  theerrorwas harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.;݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "   32F3  0    Towininfederalcourt. 3,݌(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Ifthestateappellatecourtdecidestheclaimonthemeritsanddoesnotinvoke   waiver, forfeiture,oranyotherstate proceduraldefault,thedefendant  willbefreetopursuehisclaimonfederalhabeascorpus.;݌` (#` (# Ќ  "; "  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Conversely,evenifthestateappellatecourtdoesdeclareaclaimforfeited,   _marshalling_Ԁallthepotentialargumentsagainstforfeitureinthestateappeal ! maystillassistinsettinguptheclaimforfederalhabeascorpusreview.Some " aspectsofCaliforniaswaiver/forfeiturerulesmaynotstandupas adequate # andindependentstateproceduraldefaults,becausethestateappellatecourts $  applythewaiverrulesandtheirexceptionsinconsistentlyorarbitrarily.Note, %!! however,thattheNinthCircuithas heldthatCaliforniaconsistentlyapplies &"" itscontemporaneousobjectionrulewhenapartyfailstoobjecttothe '## admissionofevidence.[Citation.]Fairbankv._Ayers_(9thCir.Aug.10,2011) ($$ __F.3d__2011WL3487027at##*1.;݌)%%` (#` (# Ќ  "; "  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  The Williamsfootnoterecognizinganappellatecourtsinherentdiscretion +'' toreachaninadequatelypreservednonevidentiaryissue(Peoplev.Williams  (1998)17Cal.4th148,161fn.6,discussedabove)arguablycouldstillbe  vulnerabletosuchan adequateandindependentargument.TheCalifornia  caselawdoesnotappeartoidentifyanyclearstandardsforwhenandhowan  appellatecourtshouldexercisethatdiscretion.However,theU.S.Supreme  Courtrecentlyupheldthe adequacyofCaliforniashabeastimelinessrules   againstasimilarchallenge. Indeterminatelanguageistypicalofdiscretionary   rules.Applicationofthoserulesinparticularcircumstances,however,can   supplytherequisiteclarity.Walkerv.Martin(2011)__U.S.__,#5#131S.Ct.   1120,1128.TheCourtalsofoundthehabeastimelinessrules regularly   followed,despitesomeinstancesofmeritsconsiderationoflongdelayed   petitions. Adiscretionaryruleoughtnotbedisregardedautomaticallyupon   ashowingofseeminginconsistencies.% ^ #k#%^Ԁ[Fn.]Discretionenablesacourtto   homeinoncasespecificconsiderationsandtoavoidtheharshresultsthat   sometimesattendconsistentapplicationofanunyieldingrule.Walkerat  1130. t ;݌` (#` (# Ќ  # t   t>##  t]#