104 Cal.App.5th 625
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Jermaine Randy Howard was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for shooting a man (Reinol H.M.) at an unlicensed San Jose nightclub; the jury rejected his self-defense claim.
- After the verdict but prior to sentencing, Howard moved for a new trial, alleging the prosecutor violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) by cross-examining him about his ties to East Palo Alto, which he claimed was racially coded and biased.
- The trial court denied Howard's RJA and due process motion, concluding he failed to make a prima facie showing of a violation, and sentenced him to 19 years to life in prison.
- On appeal, Howard argued the prosecutor's conduct violated the RJA and his due process rights, the prosecutor's closing argument about "the n-word" was also improper under the RJA, and the jury instructions regarding self-defense and heat of passion improperly shifted the burden of proof.
- The appellate court found error in the trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on the RJA motion, conditionally reversed the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings under the RJA. Other claims were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Howard's Argument | Prosecutor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RJA—Prosecutor cross-examining about East Palo Alto | Biased, racially coded questioning invoking stereotypes violated RJA | Legitimate, relevant impeachment based on Howard's testimony | Howard made prima facie showing; trial court erred in not granting a hearing |
| RJA—Prosecutor's closing argument about the n-word | Argument assumed Howard wouldn't be offended, improperly "othered" him racially | Response to defense; relevant context; not objectionable | Not addressed on appeal; can be raised on remand |
| Jury instructions (heat of passion/self-defense) | Instructions conflated elements, shifted burden to defense, misled jury | Instructions accurately stated law and properly placed burden | Instructions were legally correct; no error |
| Cumulative error | Multiple errors denied fair trial | No errors or prejudice, so no cumulative error | No cumulative error; remand on RJA issue only |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mayfield, 14 Cal.4th 668 (scope of cross-examination and relevance in questioning a witness)
- People v. Schuller, 15 Cal.5th 237 (California homicide law; prosecution's burden to negate heat of passion/self-defense)
- People v. Rios, 23 Cal.4th 450 (element of malice and the mitigation to manslaughter)
- People v. Lee, 51 Cal.4th 620 (jury instruction requirements and review on appeal)
- People v. Genovese, 168 Cal.App.4th 817 (voluntary manslaughter instructions, accuracy of CALCRIM 570 and 571)
- People v. Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 731 (right of prosecutor to impeach a defendant's testimony)