People v. De La Rocha CA2/2, B336681

Nancy De La Rocha and Edwin Federico Loza, both associated with the 18th Street gang, were convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, all stemming from a retaliatory gang shooting in South Los Angeles in 2018.
The incident involved an SUV driven by De La Rocha, carrying Loza, codefendant Macias, and another man, which circled and targeted a group of four teenagers; ultimately, Macias shot all four, killing two.
Surveillance footage and statements provided to a jailhouse informant linked De La Rocha and Loza to the planning and execution of the attack, as well as the escape and attempted destruction of evidence.
Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the failure to instruct on a lesser conspiracy offense, the denial of separate trials, the admission of statements to an informant, and certain trial procedures/arguments.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the challenges, affirmed the trial court’s key evidentiary and procedural rulings, and upheld both convictions.

Issue	De La Rocha & Loza's Argument	Prosecution's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Evidence insufficient to show intent/shared purpose	Substantial evidence showed involvement and intent	Substantial evidence supported all convictions
Failure to instruct on lesser included offense	Jury should have been instructed on conspiracy to assault	Information only alleged conspiracy to murder	No duty to instruct on lesser offense; no prejudice
Denial of separate trials	Joint trial prejudiced by co-defendants’ statements	Joint trial appropriate; independent evidence strong	No abuse of discretion, no gross unfairness
Admission of informant statements	Statements inadmissible, unreliable, and violated rights	Non-testimonial, against penal interest, corroborated	Properly admitted, no confrontation/due process violation
Denial of pinpoint instruction & argument	Error to refuse pinpoint instruction and limit argument	Instruction not required; argument unprejudicial	No error or prejudice found
Informant dissuaded Loza from counsel	Rights violated by informant’s advice	No coercion, no Miranda violation, not preserved	Argument forfeited and lacks merit
Cumulative error	Combined asserted errors deprived right to a fair trial	No errors or prejudice cumulatively	No cumulative error established

People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) (standard for aider and abettor liability and intent in murder cases)
People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (aider and abettor liability for first-degree murder)
People v. Perez, 35 Cal.4th 1219 (Cal. 2005) (requirements for proof of aiding and abetting)
People v. Brown, 31 Cal.4th 518 (Cal. 2003) (accomplice statements and jury instructions)
People v. Coffman and Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) (requirements and standards for severance in joint trials)
People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (Cal. 2010) (preference for joint trials under California law)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation rights)
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1990) (undercover informants, Miranda requirements)