People v. Falaniko
205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Noaese Falaniko was convicted after three separate 2012 shooting incidents of: 1st degree murder (count 1), seven counts of attempted murder (counts 2–4, 6,7,9,10), and two counts of shooting at an occupied vehicle/inhabited dwelling (counts 5 & 8); multiple firearm, GBH, and gang enhancements were found true. Sentence aggregate: 330 years to life; restitution and parole-revocation fines were imposed for each count.
- South Street shooting (counts 8, 9, 10): defendant admitted firing an AK-47 in the street at rival gang members; multiple shell casings recovered; two victims injured (classic “kill zone” facts). Defendant confessed to police he fired ~30 rounds.
- Cherry Park shooting (counts 1–5): a night crowd saw shooters; one victim (BJ) died; several victims wounded (Siafega, Vaafuti, Kese). Evidence included shell casings and a .45 recovered; defendant gave varying accounts and offered a false alibi through his girlfriend.
- Fantasy Gold Club shooting (counts 6–7): shooter fired into the club; two victims wounded; surveillance showed shooter firing into the building; defendant told police he called two Samoans outside and fired three times to scare them.
- On appeal defendant argued (inter alia) instructional error in the attempted murder instruction (use of disjunctive “or” and kill-zone language), erroneous inclusion of natural-and-probable-consequences language for aiding-and-abetting, involuntary statements based on promised leniency, cumulative error, and failure to instruct on self-defense for certain counts. Appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed counts 2, 3, 6, and 7 and reversed the restitution/parole-revocation fines; remanded for retrial on those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attempted-murder instruction (CALCRIM No. 600 modified) misstated intent by using disjunctive "or" and permitting group convictions without specific intent to each victim | Instruction properly allowed conviction under either specific intent to each victim or a kill-zone theory grouping victims | The disjunctive wording allowed convictions without finding specific intent as to each victim; kill-zone language was inapplicable to some counts | Error: instruction misstated law; convictions reversed as to counts 2,3,6,7; affirmed as to counts 4,9,10 and South Street counts where kill-zone supported conviction |
| Whether giving kill-zone instruction where not supported by evidence required reversal | Kill-zone instruction was permissible for all attempted-murder counts | Kill-zone theory lacked substantial evidentiary support for counts 4,6,7 (victims not in same zone) | Kill-zone instruction unsupported for counts 4,6,7; error as to count 4 found harmless (Watson) but counts 6 and 7 reversed; South Street kill-zone supported convictions |
| Whether inclusion of bracketed natural-and-probable-consequences language in CALCRIM No. 400 required reversal | Inclusion risked jury convicting under N&P consequences theory without foreseeability requirement | The language was surplusage; prosecution did not rely on N&P doctrine and no prejudice shown | Error was inapplicable/harmless under Watson; no reversal on that basis |
| Whether defendant's statements were involuntary due to implied promises of leniency | Statements involuntary because officers implied cooperation would lead to leniency | Officers’ exhortations to cooperate and comments about judge considering cooperation were not promises of leniency; statements voluntary | Court found statements voluntary; admission proper; no suppression warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stone, 46 Cal.4th 131 (California 2009) (distinguishes attempted murder’s specific intent from murder’s implied malice and discusses kill-zone theory)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (California 2002) (explains kill-zone/concurrent intent and limits of transferred intent for attempts)
- People v. Decker (People v. Superior Court (Decker)), 41 Cal.4th 1 (California 2007) (defines attempted murder requires specific intent and direct but ineffective act)
- People v. Perez, 50 Cal.4th 222 (California 2010) (guilt for attempted murder must be judged separately as to each victim)
- People v. McCloud, 211 Cal.App.4th 788 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (discusses kill-zone instruction is not required and is an inference for the jury)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (California 2009) (instructional error on elements requires reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (California 1956) (harmless error standard for non-constitutional errors)
- Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1972) (prosecution must prove confession voluntariness by preponderance)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)