People v. Cornejo
C072053M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Victim Deandre Ellison was fatally shot as he pulled into his driveway; occupants of an SUV (defendants Jesse, Adam Cornejo, and Isaac Vasquez) opened fire; multiple rounds exchanged and Ellison killed. Defendants arrested after a high‑speed chase; ballistics and GSR linked Adam and Isaac as shooters; Jesse drove.
- All three were convicted of second‑degree murder, multiple counts of attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and related firearm enhancements; jury found crimes were gang‑related under Penal Code §186.22(b); various firearm enhancements (§12022.53) were found true, including vicarious enhancements under subdivision (e)(1).
- Defendants appealed, raising (inter alia) sufficiency of gang‑enhancement evidence, admissibility of certain expert and police testimony, exclusion of a Facebook post, an allegedly erroneous causation instruction, Isaac’s claim under Evidence Code §356, and juvenile Eighth Amendment challenges (Adam and Isaac).
- The Court of Appeal (3d Dist.) reversed the gang enhancements and the vicarious §12022.53(e)(1) firearm findings based on People v. Prunty; otherwise affirmed the convictions after rejecting or finding harmless the other claims. Ordered abstracts amended to show restitution joint and several.
- On the juvenile Eighth Amendment claim (functional LWOP), the court held the claim moot in light of SB 260 and People v. Franklin because defendants are eligible for youth offender parole hearings by their 25th year; no remand was required because the record already contained mitigating evidence offered at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of gang‑enhancement evidence (§186.22(b)) | Prosecution: expert testimony that subsets and members identified as Norteños and the expert described predicate offenses sufficed to show a single gang benefiting from the crimes | Defendants: predicate offenses were committed by different Norteño subsets unconnected to defendants’ subsets; no evidence linking subsets into one organization | Reversed gang enhancements: under People v. Prunty, prosecution must show associational/organizational connection between subsets; mere shared “Norteño” label insufficient |
| Vicarious §12022.53(e)(1) firearm enhancements | Prosecution: enhancements tied to gang enhancement element | Defendants: rely on insufficiency of gang proof | Reversed vicarious firearm enhancements because they require §186.22(b) as element and that was reversed |
| Admission of expert testimony (gang culture and who likely fired first) | Prosecution: gang expert and detective testimony explained gang behavior and rebutted possible witness bias; testimony assists jury | Defendants: testimony invaded jury function and opined on credibility/ultimate issue | Admitted: court found Detective Kirtlan’s testimony rehabilitative (rebut bias) and gang‑expert opinion permissible under Evid. Code §801 as beyond common experience; no abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of Facebook post (defense proffer to show victim returned to gang life) | Defendants: post showed victim’s state of mind and tendency to be gang‑active, relevant to self‑defense/who fired first | Prosecution: foundation and hearsay issues; trial judge: risk of side‑show and limited probative value | Forfeited by failure to press rulings; in any event excluded under Evid. Code §352—probative value minimal and would consume undue time; not a denial of due process |
| Causation instruction (CALCRIM No. 520 bracketed language vs. CALJIC 3.41 given) | Defendants: court omitted CALCRIM causation bracketed language; instruction used obsolete CALJIC phrasing and the term “proximate cause” misleading | Prosecution: CALJIC adequately covered substantial‑factor causation; error harmless | Error in using CALJIC wording and omitting definitional paragraph, but harmless: substantial‑factor/proximate causation instruction covered; both Adam and Isaac proximately caused death regardless of who fired fatal shot |
| Evidence Code §356 / completeness re: Isaac’s police statement | Isaac: detective’s partial testimony that Isaac gave location of missing 9mm misled jury; whole statement (including self‑defense content) should be admitted | Prosecution: limited purpose to show police attempted to locate gun; full rambling statement unnecessary and on different subject | No abuse of discretion: testimony admitted did not create misleading impression; §356 requires same‑subject necessity and trial court reasonably limited scope |
| Juvenile Eighth Amendment challenge (functional LWOP) | Defendants (Adam, Isaac): aggregate sentence effectively LWOP and violated Miller/Graham—trial court should consider youth/mitigation and possibly remand | Prosecution: SB 260 (Pen. Code §3051) provides parole hearing by 25th year—moots claim; Franklin supports this | Moot: SB 260 / Franklin render Miller challenge moot because both defendants are eligible for youth‑offender parole by 25th year; record already contained mitigating evidence so no limited remand required |
| Abstracts of judgment – restitution allocation | People: restitution properly imposed | Defendants: abstracts should show joint and several restitution | Conceded by AG and ordered: amend abstracts to reflect restitution is joint and several |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (requires proof of associational/organizational connection among gang subsets to support §186.22(b) enhancements)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (limits admissibility of case‑specific hearsay by gang experts; confrontation concerns)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (SB 260 parole scheme renders some Miller challenges moot and discusses limited remand scope)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; sentencer must consider youth/mitigation)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (LWOP for juvenile nonhomicide offenders unconstitutional; juveniles have diminished culpability)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012) (functional LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; sentencing court must consider youth and mitigating circumstances)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2002) (proximate causation principles where multiple actors fire and fatal bullet origin unknown)