People v. Mendoza, 52 Cal. 4th 1056

Mendoza was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement and three special circumstances, and the jury returned a death verdict; the trial court initially struck the lying-in-wait special circumstance but the court of appeal reinstated it after review.
The killing occurred at about 1:30 a.m. on May 11, 1996, when Fraembs, a Pomona police officer, was shot in the face during a police stop involving Mendoza and associates.
Flores, Mendoza’s girlfriend and the key witness, testified to Mendoza’s actions and sequence leading to the shooting; other physical and testimonial evidence linked Mendoza to the murder weapon, bullets, and related materials.
Mendoza testified via a defense case focusing on Flores’s credibility and alleged lack of premeditation; the defense also contested the legality of Fraembs’ stop and the detention.
Parole conditions on Mendoza (no weapon possession, avoidance of gang association) and his statements to Flores and his mother were admitted at trial to support an inference of motive to kill to avoid arrest; the court later ruled on the admissibility of parole-related evidence.
The People successfully argued that the trial court erred when it struck the lying-in-wait special circumstance, and the California Supreme Court reinstated that special circumstance under section 1260, affirming the judgment as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of premeditation and deliberation evidence	People assert substantial evidence of planning, motive, and manner.	Mendoza contends evidence is insufficient to prove premeditation.	Evidence supports premeditation and deliberation.
Lying-in-wait first-degree murder and lying-in-wait special circumstance	People argue the lying-in-wait theory is properly supported and the court lacked authority to strike.	Mendoza claims insufficient watching/waiting and that striking was valid.	Substantial evidence supports lying-in-wait; court had no authority to strike the special circumstance; reinstated under section 1260.
Authority to strike a jury-found special circumstance	Section 1385.1 prevents striking a jury-found special circumstance.	The trial court could strike under section 1385.	Court reinstates lying-in-wait special circumstance; 1252 review permitted to correct error.
Sufficiency of evidence for special circumstances (officer murder and avoid lawful arrest)	Evidence shows Fraembs acted lawfully; murder satisfied special circumstances.	Questioned lawfulness of Fraembs’ detention as the basis for these special circumstances.	Evidence supports both special circumstances.
Admission of threats and witness fear; Flores credibility	Threat evidence relevant to credibility and motive.	Evidence inadmissible or prejudicial under Evidence Code 352.	Admissible; no reversible error; properly weighed and limited.

People v. Moon, 37 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2005) (lying-in-wait requirements; substantial evidence standard for premiditation and delay)
People v. Brady, 50 Cal.4th 547 (Cal. 2010) (rapid, cold, calculated killing may show premeditation)
People v. Solomon, 49 Cal.4th 792 (Cal. 2010) (Anderson framework; planning, motive, and manner as indicators of premeditation)
People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182 (Cal. 2007) (lying-in-wait elements; duration not fixed, must show mind equivalent to premeditation)
People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) (definition of officer engaged in duties; objective lawful conduct required)