People v. Anderson CA2/2
B282048AM
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2021Background
- On May 3, 2015, a white pickup followed a red Volkswagen; shots were fired into the Volkswagen. Tony Rivas was shot and suffered serious spinal injuries; Carlos Manzur was also shot at.
- Surveillance video placed appellant Robert Anderson near the market in a white sleeveless shirt shortly before the shooting; the pickup used in the shooting was registered to Anderson.
- Rivas and Manzur identified Anderson in photo arrays, at the preliminary hearing, and at trial; Anderson testified that a friend (Davion) had the truck and denied being the shooter.
- Evidence included surveillance video, a witness (Andrade) describing the shooter and partial license-plate digits, jail calls showing attempts to dissuade Rivas from testifying, and impeaching inconsistencies in Rivas’s statements.
- A jury convicted Anderson of two counts of attempted premeditated murder with multiple firearm enhancements; he received 55 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but the Supreme Court transferred the matter for reconsideration in light of People v. Lemcke.
- The appellate court (on remand) rejected challenges to the CALCRIM No. 315 certainty language, confrontation claims (impeachment exclusion/admonition), and failure to instruct on attempted voluntary manslaughter, but remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion under amended Penal Code §12022.53 (Sen. Bill No. 620) and to reconsider staying sentences under §654 in light of Assembly Bill No. 518.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 315’s reference to eyewitness certainty violated due process | Lemcke and People: the certainty factor risks misleading jurors but does not automatically violate due process; context matters | Anderson: inclusion of certainty equated certainty with accuracy and was prejudicial here | Court: No due process violation on this record; certainty was one of many factors and other instructions, cross-examination, and evidence prevented fundamental unfairness |
| Whether exclusion of prior inconsistent preliminary-hearing testimony and admonition of Rivas outside the jury violated Confrontation Clause / was prejudicial | Anderson: preventing impeachment and the out-of-court admonition impaired confrontation and required reversal | People: error in limiting impeachment was harmless; no objection to admonition so claim forfeited | Court: Exclusion was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; admonition claim forfeited for lack of objection |
| Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on attempted voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) | Anderson: lesser-included attempt manslaughter instruction should have been given | People: insufficient substantial evidence of provocation or heat-of-passion; identity was the sole contested issue | Court: No instruction required—evidence did not satisfy objective or subjective elements and defendant’s denial of involvement negated a lesser-included theory |
| Whether the Pitchess in-camera review of the detective’s personnel file was adequate | Anderson: seeks independent appellate review of the sealed Pitchess proceeding | People: Argued forfeiture but did not oppose independent review | Court: Independent review conducted; no abuse of discretion—no discoverable Brady/Pitchess material found |
| Whether sentencing must be remanded in light of Senate Bill No. 620 and Assembly Bill No. 518 (post‑conviction statutory changes) | Anderson: SB 620 allows courts to strike formerly mandatory §12022.53 enhancements; AB 518 expands §654 discretion and applies retroactively | People: Agree remand required to permit exercise of new discretion | Court: Remanded for resentencing limited to court’s exercise of discretion to impose or strike §12022.53 enhancements; trial court may also reconsider which sentences to stay under §654 as amended by AB 518 (retroactive application noted) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lemcke, 11 Cal.5th 644 (Cal. 2021) (examined CALCRIM No. 315 certainty language and directed omission of certainty factor pending revision; contextual analysis for due process claims)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (Estrada retroactivity rule for beneficial sentencing changes)
- Breverman v. Superior Court (People v. Breverman), 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (standard for giving lesser included offense instructions)
- People v. Nelson, 1 Cal.5th 513 (Cal. 2016) (substantial-evidence requirement for lesser-included instructions)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Confrontation Clause cross-examination error analyzed under Chapman/harmless-error principles)
- People v. Corella, 122 Cal.App.4th 461 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (stricken prior testimony may still be used for impeachment)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (procedure for in-camera review of peace officer personnel records)