People v. Borbon CA2/8
B337521
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 28, 2025Background
- Carlos Martin Borbon was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder following the death of Juan Mendieta, who worked and sometimes stayed at an auto glass shop in Los Angeles.
- Surveillance footage, witness testimony (notably from Erika Hurtado), and Mendieta’s autopsy evidence tied Borbon to the events surrounding Mendieta’s death and disposal of his body.
- Borbon testified at trial, denied involvement, and offered an alternative account of his activities on the relevant night.
- The prosecution presented video and testimonial evidence linking Borbon to Mendieta’s body’s movement and attempted to connect him to the murder weapon, though the weapon was never found.
- The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 361 (Failure to Explain or Deny Adverse Evidence), over Borbon’s objection, and did not award presentence custody credits at sentencing.
- Borbon appealed, raising claims regarding the jury instruction and denial of custody credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error in Jury Instruction (CALCRIM No. 361) | Instruction was warranted by the evidence | Instruction was unjustified and prejudicial | Error was harmless; conviction affirmed |
| Due Process Violation by Instruction | No due process violation; evidence supported inferences | Jury allowed to draw irrational adverse inferences | No due process violation found |
| Standard of Review for Error | Apply Watson's harmless error standard | Chapman’s stricter standard applies | Watson applies; no prejudice shown |
| Presentence Custody Credits | Borbon entitled to credits; trial court erred | Borbon entitled to credits; sentence must be modified | Judgment modified to award 744 days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cortez, 63 Cal.4th 101 (Cal. 2016) (clarifies appropriate use of CALCRIM No. 361 instruction)
- People v. Grandberry, 35 Cal.App.5th 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (discusses rationale for inference from failure to explain evidence)
- People v. Cross, 45 Cal.4th 58 (Cal. 2008) (technical errors in instructions rarely grounds for reversal)
- People v. Lamer, 110 Cal.App.4th 1463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (harmless error analysis for instructional mistakes)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (sets out test for harmless error in California criminal cases)
- People v. Pensinger, 52 Cal.3d 1210 (Cal. 1991) (due process concerns with permissive inference instructions)