People v. Blackmon CA3
C078540
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- On Aug. 27, 2011, Marcus Blackmon and Jason Broadbent got into a confrontation at a Woodland bar; Blackmon fired multiple shots, injuring Tony Mares and bystander Dawn Milliken.
- Forensics recovered .45-caliber casings fired from at least two firearms; a .45 magazine found at Blackmon’s residence contained matching manufacturers’ cartridges.
- Blackmon was charged with multiple counts including assault with a semiautomatic firearm, attempted murder, firearm- and gang-related enhancements, and gang participation/possession offenses.
- A jury convicted Blackmon on all counts and found most gang and firearm enhancements true; the trial court later granted a new trial on two counts which were dismissed.
- Posttrial motions: defendant sought immunity for witness Broadbent (denied), requested sua sponte lesser-included instructions (denied), and moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct (denied).
- Trial court sentenced Blackmon to 33 years determinate plus 80 years-to-life; on appeal the court modified the judgment to stay punishment on one count under Penal Code § 654 and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Blackmon’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of gang enhancement (§ 186.22(b)(1)) | Substantial evidence shows crimes benefited/associated with Zilla and, since acts were committed with known gang members, jury could infer intent to promote gang criminal conduct. | Insufficient evidence of specific intent: victim not a gang member, not in gang territory, no gang display; presence of Broadbent alone is insufficient. | Affirmed. Expert testimony tying defendant/Broadbent to Zilla and their tactics, plus their conduct, supported specific-intent prong. |
| Sufficiency of convictions for carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle (counts 6–7) | Circumstantial evidence (immediate firing, retrieval from under seat, different guns used) supports inference firearms were loaded in vehicle. | No direct proof magazines were inserted before firing; could have been loaded later. | Affirmed. Jury could reasonably infer both firearms were loaded when carried in vehicle. |
| Trial court refusal to grant use immunity to witness Broadbent | State cannot confer use immunity; prosecutor properly declined transactional immunity; court correctly denied request for use immunity. | Broadbent could provide exculpatory testimony about the second round of shooting; court should have granted use immunity to compel testimony. | Affirmed. California law precludes state courts from conferring use immunity (People v. Masters controlling). |
| Failure to give sua sponte lesser-included instruction (attempted voluntary manslaughter) | No substantial evidence of heat of passion or imperfect self-defense for second shooting; provocation was at most words, and no imminent danger existed after defendant retreated. | Evidence supported heat of passion or unreasonable but actual belief of self-defense for the second round; instruction was required. | Affirmed. No sua sponte instruction required—provocation insufficient and no reasonable basis to find an actual but unreasonable fear at time of second shooting. |
| Juror misconduct/new trial claim | (People) Juror declaration excluded parts under Evid. Code §1150; admitted portions did not show prejudicial misconduct or refusal to deliberate. | Other jurors prejudged guilt, intimidated declarant, and refused meaningful deliberation; new trial warranted. | Affirmed. Trial court properly excluded inadmissible subjective statements; admitted statements did not establish presumptive misconduct or prejudice. |
| Sentencing: double punishment (Pen. Code § 654) | Counts based on same act/second shooting (attempted murder and assault) should not both be punished. | Argued both counts supported separate punishment. | Modified. Court stayed sentence on count 4 under § 654 (same course of conduct/single objective). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McCurdy, 59 Cal.4th 1063 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (gang enhancement requires specific intent to promote/assist gang criminal conduct)
- People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences may support conviction)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (standard for when lesser-included offense instructions are required)
- People v. Masters, 62 Cal.4th 1019 (California courts lack authority to confer use immunity)
- People v. Collins, 49 Cal.4th 175 (standards on jury misconduct/new trial review)
- People v. Redmond, 71 Cal.2d 745 (appellate standard: review record in light most favorable to judgment)
- People v. Morales, 112 Cal.App.4th 1176 (knowledge of gang membership of coconspirators supports inference of intent for gang enhancement)
- People v. Romero, 140 Cal.App.4th 15 (driver-of-shooting-appellant precedent supporting gang inference)
- People v. Villalobos, 145 Cal.App.4th 310 (acting in concert with gang member supports gang-intent inference)