207 Cal. App. 4th 332
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- John and Jeanne Loza were convicted of first degree murder after a jury trial stemming from the disappearance and death of Kathleen Barnes's acquaintance, John Rintalan, with evidence tying a gun and blood to the defendants.
- Prosecution evidence showed Rintalan disappeared March 13, 2007, Rintalan’s body was later found with duct tape and a gunshot wound, and DNA linked the .357 Magnum to Rintalan and the defendants; Barnes previously rented space to the Lozas.
- John testified he was a former Vagos member and that during a fight with Rintalan he retrieved a gun, which fired, leading to a struggle and Rintalan being duct-taped and dumped in Wrightwood; he claimed no intent to kill.
- The trial court instructed on felony murder based on kidnapping as an underlying felony, and on general aiding-and-abetting principles; objections and the adequacy of jury questions were central to later appeals.
- Evidence included John’s associations with the Vagos and testimony from Lee about fear of the Vagos, which the court later allowed to bolster credibility; the defense challenged the relevance and inflammatory nature of gang evidence.
- The court ultimately reversed Jeanne’s first degree murder conviction and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming John’s conviction; the proceedings also involved issues about jury instructions and notice of theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in instructing felony murder based on kidnapping? | Loza contends the kidnapping-based felony murder instruction was legally inadequate. | Loza argues the theory lacked proper support given the timing and intent of kidnapping. | No reversible error; jury could find independent, concurrent intents to kidnap and kill. |
| Was admission of the Vagos affiliation evidence proper? | Loza contends gang affiliation was prejudicial and irrelevant to violence propensity. | Loza asserts the evidence aided credibility and connection to property and motives. | Evidence admissible; not abuse of discretion under 1103/352; credibility use permissible. |
| Is there substantial evidence that John personally and intentionally discharged the gun causing death or great bodily injury? | The prosecution offered circumstantial evidence supporting intentional discharge by John. | John claimed the gun fired during mutual struggle, not intentional discharge by him. | There is substantial evidence supporting the finding that John personally and intentionally discharged the firearm. |
| Did Jeanne receive ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to CALCRIM No. 400 and related responses? | Loza argues Jeanne was prejudiced by the standard ‘equally guilty’ aiding-and-abetting instruction. | Jeanne contends counsel should have objected to the instruction and the court’s handling of jury questions. | Jeanne’s conviction for first degree murder reversed due to ineffective assistance and misinstruction. |
| Was the jury’s question about kidnapping alive-state of mind properly addressed? | Loza claims the court failed to clarify aider-and-abettor mental state in light of jury questions. | Jeanne argues the court provided an adequate or at least not deficient answer; defense acquiesced. | Court failed to adequately address aider-and-abettor intent; reversible as to Jeanne; not necessary to address cumulative error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (Cal. 2011) (felony-murder elements require intent to commit underlying felony)
- People v. Ainsworth, 45 Cal.3d 984 (Cal. 1988) (felony murder requires intent prior to or during acts resulting in death)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) (aider-and-abettor mens rea is personal)
- People v. Nero, 181 Cal.App.4th 504 (Cal. App. 2010) (aider-and-abettor instruction can mislead when intent is not tied to perpetrator)
- People v. Samaniego, 172 Cal.App.4th 1148 (Cal. App. 2009) (uniformly relied on aiding-and-abetting framework; may require modification of CALCRIM No. 400)
- People v. Castaneda, 51 Cal.4th 1292 (Cal. 2011) (forfeiture rule on failure to object to erroneous instructions)
- People v. Gonzalez, 51 Cal.3d 1179 (Cal. 1990) (1138 mandatory duty to clarify jury instruction questions)
- Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1990) (ambush-like notice concerns in felony-murder instructions)