People v. Martinez
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 442
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Martinez and Bailey Smith were accused of jointly sexually assaulting M.C. after a party; M.C. reported nonconsensual digital and penile penetration and injuries, and police found corroborating physical and DNA evidence.
- Smith pleaded guilty to rape in concert and testified against Martinez under a plea agreement; Smith admitted involvement and had injuries and DNA consistent with the assault.
- Martinez testified he did not penetrate M.C. and claimed limited contact or inability to penetrate; he admitted to lying in parts but denied rape.
- The trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 334 (placing on the defendant the burden to prove a witness is an accomplice by a preponderance) and CALCRIM Nos. 1001/1046 (elements of rape/sexual penetration in concert requiring proof defendant acted with an accomplice).
- Martinez objected that CALCRIM No. 334 improperly shifted the burden to prove an element (accomplice status) to him; the jury convicted Martinez of rape in concert and sexual penetration in concert and sentenced him to 18 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether instructing with CALCRIM No. 334 (requiring defendant to prove a witness is an accomplice by a preponderance) impermissibly lowered the prosecution's burden when the charged crimes require proof the defendant acted with an accomplice | The prosecutor argued accomplice status could be proven by the record and corroboration supported conviction; prosecution had adequately proved elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Martinez argued CALCRIM No. 334 shifted the burden to him to prove an element (that he acted with an accomplice), creating a reasonable likelihood the jury would relieve the prosecution of its beyond-a-reasonable-doubt obligation | The court agreed the instruction was improper in isolation for in-concert crimes but affirmed the conviction because, under the whole record (other instructions, evidence, and arguments), there was no reasonable likelihood the jury misapplied it |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tewksbury, 15 Cal.3d 953 (recognizing that generally accomplice status is collateral but requiring prosecution to prove accomplice status when it is an element)
- People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894 (upholding predecessor instruction that defendant bears burden to prove accomplice status when accomplice status is collateral to elements)
- People v. Posey, 32 Cal.4th 193 (standard of independent review for jury instructions)
- People v. Belton, 23 Cal.3d 516 (prosecution may satisfy burden to prove accomplice status by its evidence)
- People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (defining accomplice for purposes of section 1111)
- Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (due process inquiry whether instruction created reasonable likelihood of relieving prosecution burden)
- People v. DeJesus, 38 Cal.App.4th 1 (accomplice plea bargain and proximity to defendant as reasons to view testimony with distrust)
- People v. Jones, 30 Cal.4th 1084 (circumstances requiring caution when jury assesses accomplice testimony)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (counsel arguments considered in assessing instructional impact)