People v. Lopez
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cristo Lopez and Rebecca Brousseau were convicted of first degree murder and attempted robbery, with a robbery-murder special circumstance and firearm enhancements for each.
- They were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, plus unstayed terms of 25 years to life for Lopez and 1 year for Brousseau.
- The trial court imposed an unauthorized parole revocation restitution fine, which the People conceded; the court later struck it.
- The defense raised multiple appellate challenges including lack of substantial evidence for the special circumstance, jury instruction errors, admissibility of jail-admissions, instruction on included offenses, and new-trial standards; Lopez joined some challenges.
- The appellate court struck the unauthorized fine, ordered modification of abstracts of judgment, and otherwise affirmed the judgments.
- Key witnesses included Crawford, Lynch, Bictoriano, Peralez, and Lopez, with trial testimony detailing an alleged plan to rob a victim in a secluded alley and the shooting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for the special circumstance | Brousseau argues no substantial evidence of reckless indifference. | Brousseau contends there was no intent to kill and insufficient recklessness. | Evidence supports recklessness and major participation; special circumstance affirmed. |
| Aiding instruction correctness | People contend CALCRIM 400 accurately states law; any error harmless. | Brousseau argues CALCRIM No. 400’s equally guilty language misstates intent. | No reversible error; error, if any, harmless given other instructions clarifying intent. |
| Admission of jail-admissions/admissibility | Not explicitly stated as reversible error; admissibility supported by context. | Challenge to admission of alleged jail-admissions as evidence against Brousseau. | Not necessary to reverse; evidence cross-checked with other testimony; affirmed. |
| Inclusion of included-offense instructions | Jury properly instructed on intended offenses; included offenses appropriately addressed. | Brousseau seeks instruction on included offense theories not given. | Instructionon included offenses deemed properly handled under instructions provided. |
| Parole restitution fines constitutionality | No explicit challenge beyond normal punitive fines. | Argues fines may violate liberty interests. | Parole restitution fines stricken; modification of abstracts ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hodgson, 111 Cal.App.4th 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (robbery-murder accomplice can be liable for robbery-murder under certain circumstances)
- People v. Smith, 135 Cal.App.4th 914 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (lookout role may support robbery-murder special circumstance)
- People v. Lang, 49 Cal.3d 991 (Cal. 1989) (instruction modification forfeiture for failure to request clarification)
- People v. Nero, 181 Cal.App.4th 504 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (analysis of equally guilty instruction and prejudice)
- People v. Samaniego, 172 Cal.App.4th 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (forfeiture of challenged instruction when no clarifying language requested)