People v. Gonzalez CA3
C086562
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2022Background
- On Aug. 30, 2016, Ronald Antonio was chased and fatally stabbed at the Casa del Sol mobile home park; defendants Justin Gonzalez and Alexis Velazquez (members of Varrio Bosque Norteño) were identified by witnesses as the attackers.
- Trial evidence: Velazquez was the stabber; Gonzalez restrained Antonio; witnesses described gang‑related ‘‘hood‑checking’’ and shouted gang identifiers.
- Jury verdicts: Velazquez convicted of first‑degree murder with a weapon enhancement and gang enhancement; Gonzalez convicted of second‑degree murder, gang participation (§ 186.22(a)), and a gang‑motive enhancement (§ 186.22(b)(1)).
- At trial the court instructed the jury that Gonzalez could be convicted of second‑degree murder under three alternative theories, including aiding/abetting via the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences (N&P) doctrine (CALCRIM No. 403).
- Post‑conviction statutory developments: Senate Bill No. 1437 (2018) limited murder liability by eliminating use of N&P for murder; Senate Bill No. 775 (2021) permitted nonfinal convictions to raise SB 1437 claims on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 and SB 775 apply retroactively and require reversal of Gonzalez’s second‑degree murder conviction based on the trial instruction permitting conviction under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory | AG conceded bills apply retroactively but argued any instructional error was harmless because overwhelming evidence showed Gonzalez directly participated in the killing | Gonzalez argued SB 1437/775 eliminate N&P liability for murder and the jury was instructed on the now‑invalid N&P theory, so his conviction must be reversed | SB 1437 and SB 775 apply retroactively; because the jury was instructed on N&P and the prosecutor emphasized that theory in rebuttal, the instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — Gonzalez’s second‑degree murder conviction reversed and related enhancement vacated; remand for retrial or resentencing if prosecution declines |
| Whether the trial court erred in responding to the jury’s question about “knowing the consequences” in CALCRIM No. 521 (Velazquez’s claim) | People: court’s supplemental answer (drawn from People v. Cordero) correctly explained that the consequences are those flowing from the act of killing and need not be limited to consequences to the killer or victim | Velazquez: language from Cordero and the court’s answer diluted the deliberation requirement by permitting reflection on trivial or irrelevant consequences | No error. The court properly informed jurors that ‘‘consequences’’ are those flowing from the act of killing (may concern defendant, victim, or other matters); explanation did not reduce the deliberation standard and was supported by authority; Velazquez’s conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (summarizes SB 1437’s limits on felony‑murder and N&P liability and the former requirement to use section 1170.95 for nonfinal convictions)
- People v. Sanchez, 75 Cal.App.5th 191 (discusses reversal where jury was instructed on both valid and invalid theories and court cannot determine jury relied only on valid theory)
- People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (articulates Chapman standard for harmlessness when alternative‑theory error occurs)
- In re Martinez, 3 Cal.5th 1216 (discusses review when verdict may rest on invalid theory)
- People v. Cordero, 216 Cal.App.3d 275 (authorizes explanation that ‘‘consequences’’ in deliberation instruction may refer to consequences to killer, victim, or others)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (establishes harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)