People v. Battle
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Norik Abramyan was killed by two hired assailants in a Hollywood Video parking lot; Barron recruited Battle and Dillingham to kill Norik for $4,000 paid via Abramyan.
- Abramyan hired Barron to recruit killers; Barron and accomplices planned and executed the murder with Barron driving.
- Battle and Dillingham ambushed Norik in his car after waiting for about 30 minutes in the parking lot.
- Trial courts convicted Battle, Barron, and Abramyan of conspiracy and murder with special circumstances, all facing life without parole; separate juries heard each defendant, and fines were challenged.
- The appellate court struck the parole revocation fines under Penal Code section 1202.45 because the defendants’ sentences were indeterminate with no parole eligibility, and affirmed the judgments as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson/Wheeler challenge to juror exclusion | Battle alleges discrimination; Rhodes was the only or a key African-American juror. | Prosecution’s peremptory challenges did not prove discriminatory intent. | No prima facie showing; no reversible error in Wheeler/Batson analysis. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on intent to kill | Evidence shows Battle intended to kill Norik given participation and actions. | Evidence relied on is insufficient to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence supports intent to kill; no reversal. |
| Parole revocation fine improperly imposed | Fine authorized by statute. | Sentence was life without parole; no parole period to revoke; fine improper. | Parole revocation fines stricken. |
| Instruction on conspiracy and withdrawal/defense theories | Instructions properly guided jury on conspiracy and aiding/abetting. | Possible instructional errors regarding withdrawal and accomplice cautions. | No reversible error; instructions viewed in context; no miscarriage of justice. |
| Imperfect self-defense/imperfect defense of others for Abramyan | Evidence could support lesser-included instructions. | Evidence does not support imminence; defense not warranted. | No duty to give imperfect self-defense/defense of others instructions; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hutchins, 147 Cal.App.4th 992 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (Batson/Wheeler framework and deference to trial court rulings on voir dire)
- People v. Cornwell, 37 Cal.4th 50 (Cal. 2005) (three-step Batson analysis; persistent discrimination burden-shifting)
- People v. Taylor, 49 Cal.4th 574 (Cal. 2010) (review of Wheeler/Batson evidence requires more than small, isolated facts)
- People v. Freeman, 193 Cal.App.3d 337 (Cal. 1987) (financial gain special circumstance; intermediary hirees)
- People v. Singer, 226 Cal.App.3d 23 (Cal. 1990) (hirer liable for financial-gain special circumstance via intermediary)
- People v. Padilla, 11 Cal.4th 891 (Cal. 1995) (financial-gain special circumstance applicability to hirer)
- People v. Moon, 37 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2005) (lying-in-wait substantial time threshold; 90 seconds example)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (harmless error standard for prejudice from erroneous theories)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal.4th 1104 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)