People v. Aguilar CA2/7
B301406
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- On Sept. 16, 2016 Oscar Aguilar (shooter) and Esau Rios (instigator) were charged with first‑degree murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle; Aguilar also charged as a felon in possession. Gang enhancements and firearm enhancements were alleged; Aguilar faced three‑strikes priors.
- Victim Carlos Segovia was shot in the head after a short street confrontation; he died three days later. Eyewitness Ricky Valente witnessed the shooting and later pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact.
- Recorded jailhouse conversation between Rios and Aguilar showed Rios telling Aguilar Valente had “fucked up” and Aguilar suggesting Valente should leave; Valente had earlier admitted witnessing the shooting after viewing surveillance video.
- Gang evidence: parties stipulated Hobart and Harpys are criminal street gangs; a gang expert tied the shooting to Harpys territory and opined the killing benefitted the gang. Defendants had gang‑identifying tattoos.
- Jury convicted both of first‑degree murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle; found gang and firearm enhancements true. Aguilar received an aggregate indeterminate 100 years‑to‑life (tripled term plus enhancements); trial court failed to impose a 15‑year minimum parole‑eligibility term on one count, which the Court of Appeal corrected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for premeditation (Aguilar) | People: planning (brought/loaded gun, chambered round, ran to victim), motive (confrontation), and manner (close‑range headshot) support premeditation | Aguilar: shooting was spontaneous during a brief confrontation; no preexisting motive | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported premeditation under Anderson factors |
| Gang enhancement specific‑intent (§186.22) | People: shooting occurred in Harpys territory, expert testimony that it benefitted Harpys; defendants acted to assist each other, showing specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members | Defendants: prosecution failed to prove subset membership connection (Prunty) and thus insufficient proof the act benefitted the gang | Affirmed — evidence showed gang benefit and specific intent; Prunty not applicable given stipulation gangs existed |
| Admission of victim’s Marine status | People: limited references were relevant to whether defendants knew victim was not a gang member and to avoid juror exposure to media | Defendants: testimony about Marine status was prejudicial sympathy‑appeal | Affirmed — district court did not abuse Evid. Code §352 discretion; limited references were not unduly prejudicial |
| Limits on cross‑exam of gang expert re: Hobart (use of prior expert Chin’s testimony) | People: Gonzalez was gang expert generally/Harpys expert; specific preliminary hearing testimony was hearsay and not shown to be relied upon | Defendants: prevented from showing Gonzalez lacked Hobart knowledge and from impeaching his opinions | Affirmed — trial court within discretion; exclusion harmless because Gonzalez admitted limited Hobart knowledge and missing inquiry was cumulative |
| Failure to instruct on accomplice testimony (Valente) | People: Valente was not an accomplice; evidence did not show he shared intent to facilitate the murder | Aguilar: Valente acted with knowledge and intent and thus required CALCRIM No. 334 corroboration instruction | Affirmed — no substantial evidence Valente was an accomplice; no instruction required |
| Voluntary intoxication instruction scope (gang enhancement) | People: given intoxication instructions were sufficient and defense not prejudiced | Defendants: jury should have been told intoxication could be considered for gang‑enhancement specific intent | Court: instructions were legally incorrect by excluding gang‑enhancement consideration but error was harmless — no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / IAC for failing to object | People: prosecutor’s fleeting sympathy references and remarks about defense were proper comments on evidence; failure to object forfeited the claim | Defendants: prosecutor improperly solicited sympathy and accused defense counsel of misleading jury; trial counsel ineffective for not objecting | Forfeited; no IAC shown — counsel may have had tactical reasons and remarks were not so prejudicial to require reversal |
| Sentence technical error (parole eligibility) | People: sentencing should reflect statutory minimum parole eligibility when a gang enhancement is found | Aguilar: trial court omitted 15‑year minimum parole eligibility term | Modified — appellate court directed correction of abstract of judgment to reflect 15‑year minimum parole eligibility for Aguilar’s murder count |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (1968) (Anderson three‑category test for premeditation: planning, motive, and manner)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (clarifying §186.22(b)(1) — intent to promote or assist criminal conduct by gang members)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (when proving gang enhancements via subset activity, prosecution must show connection between subset and umbrella gang)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (limits on expert relating hearsay; expert may rely on hearsay generally but may not present case‑specific hearsay as true)
- People v. Brown, 31 Cal.4th 518 (2003) (accomplice instruction required only if substantial evidence the witness is an accomplice)
- People v. Mendoza, 18 Cal.4th 1114 (1998) (Watson harmless‑error standard for state law instructional error)
- People v. Castillo, 16 Cal.4th 1009 (1997) (trial court must give correct instructions it elects to give)