People v. McCray CA3, C100144

Joshua Maurice McCray was convicted by jury of multiple counts of robbery, burglary, and related charges in Sacramento County.
Evidence at trial included cellphone data, DNA, and text messages among McCray and his codefendants, relating to the charged crimes.
McCray did not raise a hearsay objection to the text messages at trial; they were admitted as party admissions or statements against penal interest, not under the coconspirator exception.
Near the close of trial, defense belatedly requested a jury instruction (CALCRIM No. 418) on coconspirator statements; the request was denied as untimely and unsupported by case law.
The jury found McCray guilty on all but one count, and he received a lengthy sentence; he appealed, arguing the trial court's failure to give the instruction was reversible error.

Issue	McCray's Argument	The People's Argument	Held
Failure to instruct with CALCRIM No. 418	Jury should have been instructed to find a conspiracy before considering codefendant text messages.	Instruction inapplicable since statements were admitted as declarations against interest, not under coconspirator exception; request was untimely.	Denial affirmed; no instruction required, no prejudice shown.
Timeliness of instruction request	Request, though late, should have been granted due to the nature of evidence.	Defense had ample notice and failed to timely request; court can deny last-minute requests per established law.	Request properly denied as untimely, mirroring Supreme Court precedent.
Sufficiency of evidence independent of text messages	Insufficient evidence of conspiracy outside texts; thus, texts should not have been considered.	Ample circumstantial evidence of conspiracy from defendant’s own statements, location data, and DNA.	Even if error occurred, no prejudice; jury likely would have found conspiracy independently.
Violation of federal constitutional rights	Omission was like failing to instruct on element of offense, requiring reversal unless harmless beyond reasonable doubt.	Not analogous to missing element; conspiracy not charged or instructed upon; harmless error if any.	No constitutional violation; state law harmless error standard applies, no reversal warranted.

People v. Ramos, 15 Cal.4th 1133 (Cal. 1997) (upholding trial court’s discretion to deny untimely jury instruction requests)
People v. Prieto, 30 Cal.4th 226 (Cal. 2003) (harmless error standard for instructional omissions on coconspirator statements)
People v. Sully, 53 Cal.3d 1195 (Cal. 1991) (same principle regarding instructional omissions)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (articulating the ‘reasonably probable’ outcome test for harmless error)