People v. Michel CA2/3
B258185
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 5, 2016Background
- On Sept. 16, 2012, Benie Alexander Michel (age 17 at the time) returned to a Compton apartment after a sidewalk confrontation and, after an argument at the apartment door, shot Salvador C. multiple times; Salvador died of two fatal wounds. Michel fled in a Chevrolet Tahoe.
- Multiple eyewitnesses (Marysela M., Cesar M., Ramon D., Deborah) identified Michel from photo arrays and in court; some described the shooter as older/taller, others had seen Michel in the neighborhood previously. Deborah initially wavered between two photos and then identified Michel after an officer showed a more recent single photo.
- Prosecution presented gang-expert testimony tying Michel to CV-3 gang and linking the location and conduct to gang activity; the Tahoe was owned by Cesar V., a CV-3 member, who was suspected to have been the getaway driver.
- Defense sought to admit evidence of an earlier, uncharged 2012 homicide (the Ruedas killing) to show third‑party culpability (implicating Cesar V. and another CV-3 member); the trial court excluded that evidence under Evidence Code § 1101 and § 352.
- Michel was convicted of first degree murder and shooting at an inhabited dwelling with gang and firearm enhancements and sentenced to a mandatory term of 50 years to life (25-to-life plus consecutive 25-to-life enhancement). The appellate court affirmed but remanded limitedly to determine whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to develop a youth-related mitigation record under Franklin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Michel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of an uncharged killing (third‑party culpability) | Exclusion proper: evidence lacked sufficient similarity/probative value and was prejudicial/confusing under §1101(b) and §352 | Ruedas killing evidence showed alternative perpetrators (matching vehicle/M.O./gang) and should have been admitted to raise reasonable doubt | Affirmed exclusion: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence too speculative and dissimilar; defense allowed to present vehicle tie-in |
| Jury instruction re: eyewitness certainty (CALCRIM No. 315) | Instruction neutrally lists factors (including witness certainty); proper under California precedent | Instruction misleading because witness certainty is not a reliable indicator of accuracy | Affirmed: instruction permissible; follows Wright and Johnson; court will not endorse a psychological theory for juries |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to challenge Deborah's identification (suggestive procedure) | No ineffectiveness: procedure (photo array then single recent photo after indecision) was not unduly suggestive; suppression motion would have failed | Counsel should have moved to suppress Deborah’s ID as impermissibly suggestive (single-photo show-up) | Affirmed: no prejudice or clear error; identification procedure reasonable and objection would have been denied |
| Ineffective assistance at sentencing re: juvenile mitigation record for future youth‑offender parole hearings | People: sentencing record showed court considered age/character and counsel made arguments; remand unnecessary | Michel: counsel failed to build a record of juvenile characteristics and mitigation necessary for Board to "give great weight" to youth factors under §3051/§4801; remand required per Franklin | Limited remand ordered: insufficient record on present record; trial court to determine if counsel was ineffective and, if so, allow parties to develop the juvenile-mitigation record per Franklin |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzales, 54 Cal.4th 1234 (prosecution evidence and rules regarding exclusion of defense evidence)
- People v. Hall, 41 Cal.3d 826 (standard for third‑party culpability evidence)
- People v. Prince, 40 Cal.4th 1179 (review standard for exclusion of third‑party evidence)
- People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (other‑crimes evidence admissibility and common plan analysis)
- People v. Kipp, 18 Cal.4th 349 (probative value vs. undue prejudice for uncharged offense evidence)
- People v. Wright, 45 Cal.3d 1126 (upholding instruction listing eyewitness factors including certainty)
- People v. Johnson, 3 Cal.4th 1183 (approving certainty as a jury consideration)
- People v. DeSantis, 2 Cal.4th 1198 (standard for unfair identification procedures)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile sentencing requires different treatment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (Eighth Amendment limits on LWOP for juveniles)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (term‑of‑years equivalent to LWOP for juveniles)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (remand framework to develop juvenile mitigation record for future youth‑offender parole hearings)
- People v. Contreras, 17 Cal.App.4th 813 (photo‑show identification context and due process analysis)