People v. Enraca, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117

Background

Enraca was convicted in 1999 of two first-degree murders with a multiple-murder special-circumstance and assault with a deadly weapon, plus firearm and gang enhancements, and sentenced to death.
Prosecution witnesses testified Enraca, a member of the ABC gang, shot the victims after a confrontation between rival gangs; some companions identified him as the shooter.
Defense presented eyewitnesses and expert testimony suggesting alternate explanations and possible intoxication effects; autopsy and forensic evidence showed executions style killings.
Enraca waived Miranda rights, confessed after a later booking interview, and disputed the validity of the second waiver as knowing and intelligent.
Trial court admitted the confession, found waiver valid, and held Vienna Convention consular rights violation did not render the confession inadmissible.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the confession and waiver admissible after Miranda and consular rights concerns?	People argues waiver was valid and interrogation proper.	Enraca contends continued questioning after invoking counsel violated rights and consular notices mattered.	Confession admissible; valid waiver under totality; consular rights did not taint it.
Did Vienna Convention consular rights violation require suppression of the confession?	People argues no linkage to confession; harmless in context.	Enraca argues violation taints voluntariness.	No suppression required; Sanchez-Llamas rationale applies; no causal linkage shown.
Was the trial court correct to refuse a heat-of-passion instruction?	People contends evidence supported provocative heat-of-passion.	Enraca maintains there was substantial evidence of provocation.	No substantial evidence supporting heat-of-passion; instruction properly refused.
Did victim impact evidence require sua sponte limiting instructions in the penalty phase?	People contends CALJIC 8.85 and related instructions suffice; no sua sponte instruction needed.	Enraca argues more explicit curative guidance was warranted.	No error; existing instructions properly directed the jury; any error was harmless.
Was there a need for a lingering-doubt instruction at the penalty phase?	People argues no mandatory lingering-doubt instruction beyond 8.85.	Enraca asserts the alternate juror context requires such instruction.	Lingering-doubt instruction not required; 8.85 suffices.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Sapp, 31 Cal.4th 240 (2003) (confession after invoking counsel may be voluntary if totality of circumstances supports it)
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (consular notification rights do not per se invalidate confessions)
People v. Davis, 46 Cal.4th 539 (2009) (totality-of-circumstances test for waiver and interrogation)
People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (victim impact and related penalty-phase guidance)
Gonzales & Soliz, 52 Cal.4th 254 (2011) (lingering-doubt instruction for penalty phase)