People v. Austin CA4/2, E073184

On January 2018 two shooters fired at Jermoni Stewart and Jordan Bass; Stewart was killed and Bass was wounded but survived.
Bass gave inconsistent identifications: a photographic lineup comment that Austin “would look more like” a suspect if darker/shorter, inability at trial to positively ID in-court, but prior courtroom identifications and a purported "inside feeling."
Investigators found a blood trail at the scene; DNA from the trail matched Austin and Stewart. Austin presented at a hospital the same day with a gunshot wound to his ankle.
Trial evidence included a stipulation that Bass had a prior felony theft conviction and had falsely claimed to be a victim of that incident; the court excluded any mention that Bass had shot himself during that robbery.
Jury convicted Austin of murder, attempted murder, and felon in possession; most sentencing enhancements were found true and the court imposed 109 years to life.
On appeal Austin raised (1) the exclusion of evidence that Bass shot himself during a robbery and (2) the use of CALCRIM No. 315 (including the eyewitness certainty factor). The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Austin)	Held
Admissibility of evidence that Bass shot himself during a robbery	Excluding reference to the firearm was proper; the stipulated fact (Bass lied claiming victim) sufficed and mention of being shot was unnecessary and potentially prejudicial	The fact Bass shot himself was relevant to impeach Bass's credibility and show propensity to lie and possible involvement in the shooting	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion. The specific fact of being shot added no meaningful impeachment beyond the stipulation and was not sufficiently relevant to require admission
Use of CALCRIM No. 315 (eyewitness certainty factor)	Instruction was proper under controlling precedent; overall instructions left jury free to assess credibility and did not lower the prosecution’s burden	Instruction violated due process because witness certainty is not a reliable indicator of accuracy and could mislead jurors	Affirmed: no due process violation. Court followed People v. Lemcke — CALCRIM No. 315 was not unconstitutional on this record though Lemcke directed omission of the certainty factor pending Judicial Council review

People v. Lemcke, 11 Cal.5th 644 (superseding guidance on CALCRIM No. 315; held instruction not unconstitutional on the record but directed omission of the certainty factor pending Judicial Council review)
People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (approved use of CALCRIM No. 315 prior to Lemcke)
People v. Peoples, 62 Cal.4th 718 (standard of review for exclusion of evidence)
People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (discusses forfeiture and when objections may be excused)
People v. Alvarez, 14 Cal.4th 155 (limits on raising new relevance theories on appeal)
People v. Mai, 57 Cal.4th 986 (strategic counsel decisions and evidence tradeoffs)