32 Cal. App. 5th 792
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In 1978 Leslie Long was abducted, raped by two men, and executed; DNA decades later linked Neal Matthews (defendant) as one of the attackers.
- Terry Moses pled guilty and identified Matthews; DNA confirmed Matthews' semen in Long's body.
- Defendant was charged with first-degree murder with special‑circumstance allegations (murder during commission of robbery, kidnapping, and rape), firearm enhancements, and three strike priors.
- At retrial the jury convicted Matthews of first‑degree murder, found all three special circumstances true, and found a principal was armed; sentencing imposed LWOP and multiple fines.
- On appeal Matthews challenged the special‑circumstance instruction (claiming the court misstated and failed to define a statutory element), alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and raised sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court errs by instructing a jury to prove a fact that is not actually an element and failing to define it ("superfluous element") | People relied on an instruction that included the phrase "physically aided" as an element of the special circumstance | Matthews argued the court erred by using the 1977 statutory language and failing to give the statutory definition, which altered the burden and required reversal | No reversible error: a mistake as to a superfluous element does not invalidate a conviction when statutory elements were otherwise correctly instructed and proved |
| Whether the People are bound by their election to use a particular statutory version or theory | People argued the applicable statute (1978 version) did not require "physical aiding" so omission of the statutory definition was immaterial | Matthews argued the People elected the 1977 version (with "physically aided") and must be held to that election | Court rejected Matthews: election doctrine does not convert proving the wrong offense into a valid theory; the People did not intentionally choose a non‑statutory element |
| Whether California's law‑of‑the‑case or invited‑error doctrines require treating an unobjected‑to superfluous element as binding | People argued California's doctrines differ from Washington's and do not bind appellate courts to erroneous jury instructions | Matthews relied on Washington precedent to argue the People must prove the added element once submitted | Court held California's law‑of‑the‑case does not apply as in Washington; invited‑error requires deliberate tactical choice, which did not occur here |
| Whether addition of a superfluous element reduces the People's burden of proof in a constitutionally cognizable way | People argued any diminution in proving non‑statutory fact is not a cognizable statutory/constitutional error | Matthews argued failing to define the superfluous element could have lowered the burden and prejudiced him | Court held no cognizable error: only statutory elements matter for sufficiency and burden; related precedent supports this result |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (discusses elements as facts that increase penalty)
- People v. Anderson, 47 Cal.4th 92 (use statutory provisions in effect when the crime occurred)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (same principle about applicable statutory version)
- People v. Dayan, 34 Cal.App.4th 707 (upholding conviction despite instruction adding an extra element)
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (noting erroneous addition of requirement did not prejudice defendant)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (assess sufficiency against charged crime, not erroneously heightened jury instruction)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (prosecutorial interest in upholding convictions where statutory elements proved)