People v. Juarez CA6, H050476

Background

On Jan 13, 2019 a group of Sureño‑affiliated individuals shot and killed Jose in Greenfield; Angel (a cooperating accomplice) testified that Solis fired and Juarez supplied guns and drove to meet the group. Juarez and Solis were tried together and convicted of first‑degree murder, two counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and conspiracy to commit murder; both later pleaded no contest to active participation in a criminal street gang in a post‑verdict amendment and sentencing followed.
The prosecution’s case relied on (a) Angel’s testimony and recorded pretext calls between Angel and Solis, (b) gang expert testimony (Detective Partida) establishing gang affiliations and motive, (c) phone and photo data from defendants’ phones, and (d) surveillance video and other circumstantial evidence corroborating parts of Angel’s account.
The trial court bifurcated gang‑enhancement proceedings under Penal Code §1109 but admitted gang evidence for motive and credibility; it instructed with CALCRIM No. 1403 (limited purpose of gang evidence) but declined to give CALCRIM Nos. 1400/1401 defining statutory gang elements.
Juarez contended at trial that he only temporarily held a MAC‑10 and withdrew; he testified and presented a gang expert rebuttal. Solis did not testify and his police interview and pretext calls were admitted against both defendants to varying degrees.
On appeal defendants raised numerous claims: instructional errors (gang definitions, withdrawal, causation, conspiracy instruction), severance, admission of gang and hearsay evidence (pretext calls), insufficiency of accomplice corroboration, judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct/false evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but ordered correction of an error in Solis’s abstract of judgment.

Issues

Issue	Juarez/Solis Argument	People’s Argument	Held
Failure to instruct on statutory definitions of “criminal street gang” and “active gang membership”	Trial court should have given CALCRIM 1400/1401 so jurors could evaluate gang evidence and experts; omission lowered burden on intent/premeditation	Definitions unnecessary because §186.22 elements and enhancements were not tried; CALCRIM 1403 adequately limited gang evidence for motive/credibility	No error: gang evidence was admitted for motive/credibility, not to prove §186.22, and CALCRIM 1403 plus general instructions sufficed; defendants should have requested more specific definitions if desired.
Failure to instruct on withdrawal (aiding/abetting and conspiracy)	Substantial evidence supported withdrawal (Juarez left the truck and returned home), so court must instruct on withdrawal	No substantial evidence that Juarez did everything reasonably within his power to prevent the crime or affirmatively repudiated a conspiracy	No error: insufficient evidence of the required affirmative acts to prevent the crime or of communicated repudiation; refusal to give withdrawal instruction was proper.
Omission of proximate‑cause language in murder instruction	jurors should have been instructed on proximate cause / intervening acts because causation was contested (Juarez may have only handed over a gun)	Aider/abettor liability does not require the aider to proximately cause death; existing instructions on murder and aiding/abetting were adequate; any omission harmless	Harmless if any error: aiding/abettor theory made further proximate‑cause language unnecessary and any omission was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Admission of pretext phone calls and adoptive/statements‑against‑interest	Many Solis responses were vague, nonresponsive, or inadmissible hearsay when used against Juarez; admission violated hearsay rules and was prejudicial	Calls were nontestimonial, admissible as adoptive admissions (Evid. Code §1221) or statements against penal interest (Evid. Code §1230); trial court reviewed clips and limited admission under §352	No abuse of discretion: court reviewed clips, found most challenged segments admissible as adoptive admissions and/or statements against interest and any marginal admissions were harmless; instructions on adoptive admissions were given.
Admission of gang evidence to prove motive	Gang evidence was inflammatory and should have been excluded under §1109 bifurcation and §352	Gang evidence was relevant to motive, intent, identity, and credibility; §1109 does not bar such evidence in the guilt phase	No abuse of discretion: limited gang evidence admitted for motive/credibility was relevant and properly limited; many contested topics arose from defense questioning.
Sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice (Angel) testimony	Angel’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated under Penal Code §1111	Phone, surveillance, phone data, photos, travel and consciousness‑of‑guilt evidence corroborated Angel	Corroboration sufficient: circumstantial evidence connected Juarez to the crime independently of Angel.
Severance and admission of Solis’s police interview	Trial court should have severed because Solis’s interview contained incriminating/ inflammatory material implicating Juarez; counsel ineffective for not moving mistrial	No serious risk of prejudice; interview contained little incriminating detail about Juarez; defense counsel reasonably declined challenge	No abuse of discretion or ineffective assistance: interview was not markedly prejudicial, and counsel’s tactical choices were reasonable.
Alleged judicial bias	Trial judge was dismissive, interrupted defense disproportionately, and showed bias toward prosecution	Court was within discretion to manage trial and admonish counsel; single hallway incident was addressed and remedied	No reversible bias: most complaints forfeited for no objection; isolated instances did not show pervasive judicial bias or denial of fair trial.
Prosecutor misconduct / false evidence (van map)	Prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony/map suggesting Juarez’s van turned toward crime scene	Detective’s testimony was equivocal and recanted after review; prosecutor did not knowingly present false evidence	No misconduct: inconsistent testimony was corrected on cross/examination and stipulation showed van not captured; no reasonable likelihood of prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Tran, 13 Cal.5th 1169 (2022) (gang evidence admissible for non‑enhancement purposes such as motive and identity)
People v. Ramirez, 13 Cal.5th 997 (2022) (same principle on gang evidence relevance)
People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (2004) (gang evidence may prove motive, intent, modus operandi)
People v. Townsel, 63 Cal.4th 25 (2016) (trial court must instruct on general legal principles relevant to the evidence and defendant’s theory)
People v. Shelmire, 130 Cal.App.4th 1044 (2005) (withdrawal from aiding/abetting requires notification and steps to prevent the crime)
People v. Ware, 14 Cal.5th 151 (2022) (conspiracy to commit murder requires express malice/intent to kill)
People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (2001) (mental state for aider and abettor differs from direct perpetrator but still requires culpable intent)