California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Harzan is that a trial court prejudicially violates a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense when it conditions the exclusion of highly prejudicial prior misconduct evidence on the defendant's waiver of an entrapment defense, under circumstances where the prior misconduct evidence is not relevant to the objective entrapment standard under California law.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Orange County.

Defendant Appellant was Jan Curtis Harzan — a 65-year-old man who engaged in sexually explicit electronic communications with an undercover police detective he believed was a 13-year-old girl named "Brianna" over a nine-day period.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — prosecuting Harzan for communicating with a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense and arranging to meet a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense.

The suit sounded in criminal charges under Penal Code sections 288.3 and 288.4.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Harzan posted a Craigslist ad seeking a "young coed friend," then engaged in extensive sexually explicit text and email communications with "Brianna" (Detective Baugh) over nine days, discussing sexual acts, birth control, and arranging to meet at a restaurant where he was arrested. Harzan repeatedly expressed concerns about the illegality of having sex with a minor but ultimately agreed to meet her.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court ruled that evidence of Harzan's sexual misconduct with his sister and her friend in the 1970s could not be admitted in the prosecution's case-in-chief as unduly prejudicial, but could be introduced if Harzan raised an entrapment defense. To prevent introduction of this highly prejudicial evidence, Harzan surrendered his entrapment defense and was convicted as charged, receiving a two-year prison sentence.

The key questions on Appeal: 1) Whether the trial court erred in conditioning exclusion of prior sexual misconduct evidence on defendant waiving his entrapment defense, thereby violating his constitutional right to present a defense; 2) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

The Appellate Court held the trial court prejudicially violated Harzan's constitutional right to present a defense by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior sexual misconduct if he raised an entrapment defense, because under California's objective entrapment standard, the defendant's subjective intent and prior misconduct are irrelevant — the test focuses solely on whether police conduct would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. However, the court found sufficient evidence supported the convictions, so retrial is not barred.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant's prior misconduct would be relevant under Evidence Code section 1101(b) for purposes other than rebutting an entrapment defense, when a subjective (rather than objective) entrapment standard applies, or when the prior misconduct evidence is not highly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352.

The case leaves open how trial courts should handle other types of conditional evidentiary rulings that may impinge on constitutional defense rights, and whether different procedural safeguards might allow consideration of defendant's background in entrapment cases without violating constitutional rights.