People v. Mejia
211 Cal. App. 4th 586
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Trial court convicted Mejia, Perez, Caseros, Hernandez of first-degree provocative-act murder of Lorenzo with gang-aid enhancements; willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder of Pulido; attempted residential burglary; shooting at inhabited dwelling; and firearm enhancements.
- Jury found gang-murder special circumstance under §190.2(a)(22) and related enhancements under §186.22(b)(1) and §12022.53 for firearm discharge by a principal.
- Defendants challenged sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and application of the special circumstance/ gang enhancements, along with various fines and procedural issues.
- Evidence showed a coordinated Oct. 12, 2005 attack by 18th Street gang members on Pulido’s apartment to kill him, with Lorenzo aiding the plan and being killed in the ensuing confrontation.
- Forensic and admissions evidence linked Mejia, Perez, Caseros, and Hernandez to the crime and to gang activity; Lorenzo was an 18th Street gang member and the murder beneficiary of the provocative act scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for provocative-act murder | People claim sufficient evidence supports first-degree murder via provocative act. | Defendants contend inconsistencies undermine plan and causation. | Sufficient evidence supported first-degree provocative-act murder and related counts. |
| Applicability of gang-murder special circumstance | People argue act was carried out to further gang activities. | Defendants contend lack of individual malice or plan-specific mens rea. | Gang-murder special circumstance applies to provocative act murder; accomplice liability extended under §190.2(c). |
| CALJIC No. 8.12 and related instructions | People rely on proper instruction to define provocative act murder. | Defendants challenge possible overbreadth or misinstruction. | CALJIC No. 8.12 correctly instructed; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| CALJIC No. 3.02 and aiding/abetting theory | Aiding-and-abetting theory under CALJIC No. 3.02 could apply to murder. | Instruction improperly framed; danger of natural-and-probable-consequence theory for murder. | CALJIC No. 3.02 was improper but harmless; no reversal required. |
| CALJIC No. 5.44 and self-defense presumption | Presumption potentially skewed burdens; defense asked for guidance. | Instruction may create improper presumption; request timely objected. | CALJIC No. 5.44 held harmless; no due-process violation; extensive defense instructions preserved substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Briscoe, 92 Cal.App.4th 568 (Cal. App. 2001) (provocative act murder concept and vicarious liability discussed)
- People v. Cervantes, 26 Cal.4th 860 (Cal. 2001) (proximate cause and provocative-act framework)
- People v. Concha (I), 47 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2009) (malice requirements for provocative act murder; vicarious liability limits)
- People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal.2d 690 (Cal. 1965) (felony murder and provocative act relationship; degree elevation)
- People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (Cal. 1968) (premeditation/deliberation framework for first-degree murder)