# People v. Epps

> California Supreme Court · March 5, 2001 · 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 572

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796277

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS LEE EPPS, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 5, 2001
- **Citations:** 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 572; 25 Cal. 4th 19; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 2247; 18 P.3d 2; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1801; 2001 Cal. LEXIS 1164
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kennard
- **Judges:** Brown, Werdegar, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 157 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796277

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the right to a jury determination of whether a prior conviction occurred exists only “in an appropriate case,” and that “depending on the circumstances, the question might well be for the court” rather than the jury

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J.
I dissent.
The majority holds that the Legislature has not, by the 1997 amendment to Penal Code section 1025, eliminated a criminal defendant’s long-established statutory right to jury trial on a prior conviction allegation, but it also holds that the complete denial of that jury trial right may be, and here was, harmless error.
I disagree that denial of an accused’s right to jury trial—whether the right’s source is statutory or constitutional—may ever be harmless. As I explained in my dissenting opinion in People v. Vera (1997) 15 Cal.4th 269, 282-286 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 , 934 P.2d 1279 ] (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.), “[t]he denial of jury trial is a structural error that can never be harmless, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt.” (Id. at p. 286; see also People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 463 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 , 981 P.2d 518 ] (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) Because the Court of Appeal here correctly so held, I would affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied May 16, 2001. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796277. Public record. Not legal advice.