People v. Lopez
56 Cal. 4th 1028
Cal.2013Background
- Juan Manuel Lopez orchestrated Mindy Carmody's murder while his brother Ricardo carried it out; Mindy was a teen who joined the Baby Locas gang and had dated Lopez; Mindy was kidnapped and murdered on April 12, 1996 in an alley after a plan to kill her to prevent testimony; Lopez was tried with Ricardo in a joint trial; the prosecution argued Lopez was the mastermind and a principal under aiding and abetting/conspiracy theories; evidence included three-way calls and witnesses linking Lopez to planning and pressure on victims and witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire bias questioning adequacy | dtype: defendant; court abused discretion | insufficient probing of racial bias | no abuse; questionnaire adequate |
| Peremptory challenges discriminatory | prosecution used WT to exclude minority jurors | no prima facie case of bias | no prima facie Wheeler discriminatory purpose shown |
| Defendant absent from in-chambers voir dire | constitutional rights violated | no due process violation | no reversible error; absence permissible |
| Admission of three-way call testimony | straw to show planning; within Richardson framework | violates stipulation restricting references to three-way conversation | proper interpretation of stipulation; testimony admissible as independent evidence of planning and as impeachment |
| Sufficiency of evidence of first-degree murder as principal | evidence showed Lopez orchestrated and aided Ricardo | insufficient direct evidence; lack of predicate acts | substantial evidence supports1st-degree murder as principal under aiding and abetting/conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holt, 18 Cal.4th 829 (1998) (adequacy of voir dire for bias, not reversible unless fundamentally unfair)
- People v. Taylor, 48 Cal.4th 574 (2010) (testing for bias; limitations on comparative juror analysis)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 476 U.S. 199 (1986) (redaction in joint trials avoids severance and confrontation issues)
- People v. Mitcham, 1 Cal.4th 1027 (1992) (Richardson-like admissibility of redacted statements against codefendant)
- Gentry, 270 Cal.App.2d 462 (1969) (prior consistent statements when witness fabrication asserted)
- Dyer, 45 Cal.3d 441 (1988) (stipulations interpreted to reflect probable intent; Beagle guidance)