People v. Azcona
58 Cal.App.5th 504
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Over a month in 2015 defendant Brad Azcona allegedly committed multiple shootings in Salinas; police recovered numerous nine‑millimeter shell casings from different scenes and surveillance/victim ID evidence linked Azcona to several incidents.
- The prosecution’s firearms expert visually compared firing‑pin/toolmark impressions on casings from two scenes and testified the casings were fired from the same gun “to the practical exclusion of all other guns.”
- Defense sought to exclude the toolmark identification under People v. Kelly, presenting NRC and PCAST reports and an expert criticizing the method’s scientific foundation; the trial court denied the motion and also admitted testimony that the expert’s conclusions were reviewed and approved by supervisors.
- A jury convicted Azcona of two murders, two attempted murders, various gun and assault counts; he was sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive term.
- On appeal the court held the trial court abused its gatekeeping role by permitting overstated expert assertions beyond the supporting material and violated Azcona’s Confrontation Clause rights by admitting testimonial hearsay about supervisor approval; those errors were prejudicial as to the attempted murder and related gun counts from one shooting, which were reversed and remanded for retrial.
- The court affirmed other convictions, rejected the prosecutorial‑misconduct claim, and directed the trial court on remand to consider striking a prior serious‑felony enhancement under SB 1393.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of firearm toolmark identification (Kelly) | Toolmark comparison is an established forensic technique admissible under Kelly and may be presented to the jury. | The visual toolmark method has been undermined by recent scientific reports and should be excluded or limited. | Court: Defendant failed to show a clear majority of the scientific community now rejects the method, so not categorically inadmissible; nevertheless trial court abused gatekeeping by permitting overstated, effectively certain conclusions unsupported by the underlying material. |
| Expert’s testimony about supervisor review (Confrontation/Hearsay) | Testimony that the report was reviewed by supervisors is background about laboratory practice and admissible through the testifying expert. | Statements that supervisors approved the specific case conclusions are testimonial hearsay and violate the Sixth Amendment. | Court: Statements that supervisors agreed with the case‑specific conclusions were testimonial hearsay and admission violated Confrontation Clause; error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to counts 1–3. |
| Prosecutorial argument on premeditation | Analogies (yellow light, choosing bread) fairly illustrate that premeditation can occur quickly; argument conforms to instruction. | Analogies trivialized premeditation and misstated the law, requiring reversal. | Court: No prosecutorial misconduct; analogies did not misstate law and were consistent with CALCRIM instruction on premeditation. |
| Resentencing re: prior serious‑felony enhancement (SB 1393) | Enhancement properly imposed under prior law. | Defendant requests resentencing so court can exercise new discretion to strike the enhancement under SB 1393. | Court: Remand for resentencing so trial court may consider striking the Penal Code § 667 enhancement in light of SB 1393. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (establishes California general‑acceptance test for novel scientific techniques)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (trial court must exclude expert opinion that is not supported by the material relied on)
- People v. Cowan, 50 Cal.4th 401 (distinguishes when Kelly does not apply because the matter is obvious to lay jurors)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (federal standard requiring court’s reliability inquiry for scientific evidence)
- People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 (addresses what constitutes a representative scientific community and consensus)
- People v. Bolden, 29 Cal.4th 515 (shifts burden to opponent to show change in scientific acceptance for previously admitted techniques)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (permitting similar quick‑decision analogy for premeditation in argument)