People v. Flores CA2/8
B307423
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- Flores was convicted of murder and assault for the June 22, 2018 fatal shooting of Everardo Soto; sentence: 40 years to life (15-to-life murder + consecutive 25-to-life firearm enhancement).
- Surveillance video showed a white SUV stop beside Soto and a second man; a rear-seat passenger (defendant Flores) fired multiple 9mm rounds; victims included Soto (killed) and Estrada (witness).
- Ortega (codefendant, KMT gang member) testified for the prosecution under an immunity/leniency agreement and identified Flores as the shooter; Ortega admitted prior lies to police.
- Witness Maximiliano Estrada (who ran into a nearby salon during the shooting) testified but was impeached on inconsistencies with his prior statements; defense sought to ask about a pending misdemeanor methamphetamine possession case, which the court excluded.
- Flores testified, admitted KMT membership and that he fired four shots, but claimed he acted in self-defense after seeing Soto reach under his shirt; social media posts and surveillance contradicted parts of his account.
- Flores appealed, arguing (1) exclusion of impeachment evidence regarding Estrada’s pending misdemeanor violated confrontation/presentation rights, (2) the court erred by not instructing the jury sua sponte with the accomplice caution (CALCRIM 334/335) regarding Ortega, and (3) cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court excluded questioning about Estrada’s pending misdemeanor possession charge | Exclusion was within court’s discretion because the proffered impeachment was collateral, of limited probative value, and posed fairness/proof concerns | Exclusion prevented meaningful impeachment of Estrada and violated Flores’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront and present a defense | No reversible error: exclusion was proper under Evidence Code §352 principles; impeachment was collateral and unlikely to produce a significantly different credibility impression (no constitutional violation) |
| Failure to give accomplice-caution instruction (CALCRIM 334/335) sua sponte for Ortega’s testimony | Instruction unnecessary because corroboration and testimony context made cautionary effect unnecessary | Omission impaired juror evaluation of accomplice testimony and violated due process | Court should have given instruction but error was harmless: ample corroboration (Flores’s admissions, surveillance, forensic evidence, social-media posts) and Ortega’s plea/cross-examination already put his credibility before jury |
| Cumulative-error claim | Combined evidentiary and instructional errors undermined trial fairness | Errors were not prejudicial individually or combined; record supports verdict | No cumulative error: errors either did not exist or were harmless; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Homick, 55 Cal.4th 816 (cross-examination constitutionally limited to reasonable extent)
- People v. Belmontes, 45 Cal.3d 744 (trial court discretion to restrict repetitive/marginal cross-examination)
- People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal.4th 284 (trial courts may exclude collateral impeachment under Evidence Code §352)
- People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (greater caution for impeachment based on misconduct other than convictions)
- People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (failure to instruct on accomplice liability is harmless if corroboration exists)
- People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal.4th 40 (same; sufficiency of corroboration standard)
- People v. Williams, 16 Cal.4th 635 (defendant’s admissions may corroborate accomplice testimony)