People v. Alvarado CA2/7
B289898
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 14, 2021Background:
- In 1999 four family members were killed in a South Los Angeles apartment; Ashley (then 10) survived and later testified that her half-brother Saulo Alvarado shot family members and sexually assaulted her after the killings.
- Initial 1999 investigation concluded a murder–suicide by Renzo (one victim), but gunshot residue results and later review led the coroner to change Renzo’s manner of death to homicide; the case was reopened after Ashley came forward in 2012.
- At trial the People relied on Ashley’s testimony, physical and forensic evidence, and witnesses who said Alvarado had confessed; the defense argued Renzo was the killer and sought to introduce evidence of Renzo’s alleged gang membership and initials on the gun.
- The trial court excluded evidence linking Renzo to a gang, admitted testimony about an uncharged prior rape of another girl (Jazmin Nunez) under Evidence Code §1108, and gave CALCRIM instructions on propensity and CSAAS; the jury convicted on four counts of first‑degree murder and two lewd/forcible lewd‑act counts.
- Sentenced to four consecutive life‑without‑parole terms plus firearm and determinate terms; court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and $200 sex‑offender fine. On appeal Alvarado challenged evidentiary rulings, statutory/instructional constitutionality, and the fines.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Alvarado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence that Renzo was a gang member/etched gun | Gang affiliation/initials were irrelevant; People conceded Renzo had access to the gun | Excluding gang evidence prevented linking the gun to Renzo and deprived defense of third‑party culpability evidence | Trial court did not abuse discretion: gang evidence was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative under Evid. Code §§210, 352 |
| Admission of uncharged rape (Evid. Code §1108) | Evidence of a prior sexual offense is admissible to show propensity for sexual offenses and was highly probative and not unduly prejudicial | Admission was prejudicial and tardy discovery; should be excluded under §352 | Admission proper under §1108; similarities, timing, limited jury instruction and brevity weighed against excluding it |
| CALCRIM instructions (No. 1191 on propensity; No.1193 on CSAAS) & constitutionality of §1108 | Instructions correctly state law; §1108 constitutional per Falsetta and later authority | Instructions and §1108 unconstitutionally permit propensity inferences and lessen burden of proof | Court followed binding precedent (Reliford, Falsetta, McAlpin): instructions and §1108 constitutional and correctly given; no due‑process violation |
| Restitution and sex‑offender fines (ability to pay) | Fines were proper and defendant forfeited challenge by not objecting at sentencing | Fines should be stricken or stayed absent an ability‑to‑pay finding (Dueñas) | Forfeited: defendant failed to object at sentencing; trial court not required to hold ability‑to‑pay hearing post‑sentencing in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Falsetta v. People, 21 Cal.4th 903 (1999) (upholding constitutionality of Evidence Code §1108 allowing admission of uncharged sexual offenses)
- Reliford v. People, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (2003) (propensity instruction CALJIC held not to violate due process)
- McAlpin v. State, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (1991) (CSAAS evidence admissible to rehabilitate child‑victim credibility)
- Merriman v. People, 60 Cal.4th 1 (2014) (trial court has broad discretion on relevance and §352 balancing)
- Hall v. People, 41 Cal.3d 826 (1986) (standard for admissibility of third‑party culpability evidence)
- Miracle v. People, 6 Cal.5th 318 (2018) (statutory framework for restitution fines and consideration of ability to pay when exceeding minimum)
- Dueñas v. People, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (addressing due‑process issues re: imposing assessments without ability‑to‑pay finding — noted but appellate court treated as forfeited here)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (1962) (Supreme Court decisions bind lower courts)
- Nguyen v. People, 184 Cal.App.4th 1096 (2010) (factors for §1108 §352 balancing)
- Erskine v. People, 7 Cal.5th 279 (2019) (ruling admitting §1108 evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)