2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 410
Cal. Ct. App. 2nd2016Background
- December 12, 2008: Jose Macias was shot while driving a Bentley after an altercation near a festival; he died of gunshot wounds. Eyewitnesses placed Michael Aleman at the festival and one witness (Ocampo) identified Aleman as similar to a shooter. Cell records, a festival photo, and witnesses tied defendants to the scene.
- February 23, 2008: Victor Iriarte was grazed by gunfire after leaving the same nightclub; police stopped a white Escalade minutes later with Aleman driving and Medrano a passenger and found a 9mm gun and casings.
- Key prosecution witness Sabino Cabral (associate of defendants) initially lied to police, later cooperated, pleaded immunity, and testified implicating Aleman and Medrano; defense impeached him with a prosecutor’s letter about Cabral’s cooperation and Arizona drug conviction.
- Defendants tried and convicted by jury of first‑degree murder (Macias), shooting at occupied vehicle, attempted murder (Iriarte and Macias), weapons offenses, and related counts; Aleman sentenced to 165‑to‑life plus 12 years, Medrano to 50‑to‑life.
- On appeal defendants challenge Batson/Wheeler peremptory strikes, admission of impeachment letter, Evidence Code §1101 rulings (drug and gun evidence), accomplice instruction denial, flight instruction, jury answers, cumulative error, and sentencing under §654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson/Wheeler challenges to prosecution peremptory strikes | Challenges were based on race‑neutral, plausibly articulated reasons (prior jury experience, demeanor, youth, criminal‑justice coursework, tardiness, equivocal answers) | Prosecutor's reasons were pretextual, inconsistent with the record and thus discriminatory | Trial court's rulings sustained; appellate court found substantial evidence supporting race‑neutral reasons and deferred to trial court credibility findings; no Batson/Wheeler violation |
| Admission of DDA letter (impeachment of Cabral) | Letter admissible for nonhearsay use (impeachment: show jury reaction/possible benefits), and defense invited introduction | Letter prejudicial and speculative; should be excluded under Evid. Code §352 and Confrontation Clause | Admitted; defendants invited error by seeking letter; use nonhearsay/impeachment and completeness doctrines permit admission; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Evidence of drug activity and alleged rivalry (Evid. Code §1101) | Evidence tends to show motive, context, and credibility (esp. when defense elicited it) | Evidence improperly showed propensity/criminal disposition | Admissible for motive/absence of mistake and to impeach witness; not overly prejudicial here; not improper propensity use |
| Evidence of Aleman’s gun possession (uncharged) (Evid. Code §1101) | Possession of a 9mm in Aleman’s car/storage is relevant to opportunity, intent, preparation and plan | Evidence irrelevant or propensity evidence | Admissible: probative of access/opportunity and similar weapon use; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Refusal-to-testify witness (Acosta) and limiting instruction | Prosecutor may present that witness refused to answer despite immunity; jury may draw adverse inference | Leaving the fact of her being called/refusal before jury prejudicial | Court struck her actual testimony but permissibly refused a blanket instruction to disregard that she was called; jury may infer adverse significance where witness had immunity |
| Accomplice instruction re: Cabral | Cabral was an accomplice and instruction required | Cabral was merely an eyewitness; insufficient proof he aided/encouraged crimes | No accomplice instruction required: defendants failed to prove by preponderance that Cabral was legally an accomplice; even if error, corroboration made any error harmless |
| Flight instruction and modification | Flight instruction appropriate where defendants fled or took steps to avoid detection; omitting "immediately after" language allowed | Instruction altered statutory language improperly; no evidence of flight | Modified flight instruction proper (bench notes permit omission when flight occurs later); evidence supported consciousness of guilt (fleeing, hotel stays, attempted flight) |
| Multiple punishments (§654) for murder and attempted murder of same victim | Events were temporally and factually separable (corner shooting, later freeway shooting); punish separately | Attempted murder is lesser included and §654 bars multiple punishment | §654 did not bar separate punishment: acts were divisible, separated in time/place, and presented distinct dangers; sentencing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (race‑based peremptory challenge framework)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler procedure for state Batson claims)
- People v. Lenix, 44 Cal.4th 602 (third‑step credibility/deference on peremptory challenge review)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (permissible for prosecutor to give trivial race‑neutral reason)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (factors for assessing credibility of prosecutor’s explanations)
- People v. Silva, 25 Cal.4th 345 (limits on accepting implausible prosecutor explanations for strikes)
- People v. Arias, 13 Cal.4th 92 (peremptory challenge rationale and trivial reasons)
- People v. Farnam, 28 Cal.4th 107 (admissibility of defendant’s possession of similar weapon)