People v. Larry CA2/2
B297534
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 6, 2021Background:
- Defendant Vincent Darnell Larry was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder (double homicide), gang special‑circumstance findings, multiple firearm enhancements, and possession of a firearm by a felon; sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole plus a two‑year term for the felon‑in‑possession count.
- Security camera footage showed a confrontation earlier in the night and a later shooter in the alley; multiple eyewitnesses and a gang expert connected the killings to East Coast Crips (ECC) turf control and narcotics enforcement.
- Several eyewitnesses identified Larry from photographs and video but some recanted or expressed fear at trial; several witnesses testified reluctantly, citing safety concerns.
- The prosecution admitted certified superior court records showing convictions of two ECC members (Copeland and Island) to prove predicate gang offenses; a police expert also testified about ECC from personal contacts and tattoos.
- During closing, a seated juror (Juror No. 4) complained about intimidating looks from courtroom spectators and was discharged; defense did not object to replacing the juror with an alternate.
- On appeal Larry raised (1) alleged juror bias/inadequate inquiry, (2) confrontation/hearsay challenges to gang predicate proof, (3) instructional errors (CALCRIM Nos. 315 and 370), and (4) sentencing/abstract of judgment corrections (concurrency for count 3, striking gang enhancement punishment, and custody credits).
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Larry’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror bias / court inquiry | Trial court reasonably addressed complaint, removed the concerned juror, and no further inquiry needed | Court should have questioned all jurors because spectators intimidated jury and impartiality was compromised | No abuse of discretion; only one juror expressed inability to serve, replacement appropriate, no demonstrable bias shown |
| Gang predicate evidence / Confrontation Clause & hearsay | Certified court records and expert testimony about gang background were admissible; no Crawford/Confrontation violation; defendant forfeited Confrontation claim by failing to object | Expert relied on inadmissible case‑specific hearsay (Valencia/Melendez‑Diaz); Sixth Amendment violated; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Sixth Amendment claim forfeited (no trial objection); certified court records are non‑testimonial and admissible under Evid. Code exceptions; Valencia inapplicable to court records admitted here |
| CALCRIM No. 315 (eyewitness certainty) | Instruction proper; lists witness certainty among factors to assess ID | Instruction should be modified to remove witness self‑assessed certainty because it can mislead jurors | No error: defendant forfeited modification request; Lemcke and federal precedent permit certainty as one factor |
| CALCRIM No. 370 (motive) & gang special circumstance intent | Motive instruction does not negate intent requirement; motive and intent are distinct; other instructions required intent to further gang | Motive instruction impermissibly lowered burden for gang‑murder special circumstance | No error: CALCRIM 370 does not relieve prosecution of proving intent to further gang activity; jury found required intent via other instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (recognition of testimonial hearsay rule under the Sixth Amendment)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (lab reports and confrontation rights; discussion of testimonial vs non‑testimonial public records)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (statements not testimonial when not primarily for prosecution)
- People v. Valencia, 11 Cal.5th 818 (expert may not relay case‑specific inadmissible hearsay to prove predicate offenses)
- People v. Fuiava, 53 Cal.4th 622 (trial court discretion in juror‑bias inquiries; wait‑and‑see approach reasonable)
- People v. Lemcke, 11 Cal.5th 644 (CALCRIM No. 315’s certainty factor does not render trial fundamentally unfair)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors for evaluating eyewitness identification include witness certainty)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (standards for admissibility of identifications)
- People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229 (scope of inquiry when juror bias is alleged)