People v. Partida CA2/2
B321439
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2023Background
- In January 1991 Partida (a Street Saints gang member) drove two fellow gang members into rival 39th Street gang territory; a passenger fired a drive-by shot that killed a man.
- At the 1992 trial the court, during voir dire, instructed the jury on the natural and probable consequences (NPC) theory of murder liability; the court did not give a final NPC or felony-murder instruction at the close of trial and did not tell jurors to disregard prior voir dire instructions.
- The prosecutor argued in closing that Partida could be guilty under the NPC theory even without intent to kill; defense objected to any NPC instruction.
- The jury convicted Partida of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to 15 years to life; his conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Partida filed a petition under Penal Code § 1172.6 (former § 1170.95). The trial court summarily denied the petition, concluding the jury had not been instructed on NPC or felony-murder and that prosecutorial argument could not substitute for an instruction.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the voir dire instruction on NPC was part of the jury instructions and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the § 1172.6 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Partida) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury was instructed on an invalid theory (NPC or felony-murder) such that Partida meets §1172.6(a) | Jury was not instructed on NPC or felony-murder; petitioner therefore ineligible | Voir dire included an NPC instruction that was never corrected, so petitioner satisfies §1172.6(a) prima facie requirement | Court held the voir dire NPC instruction was given and not negated by final instructions; petitioner satisfied §1172.6(a) and summary denial was error |
| Whether prosecutorial argument on NPC can substitute for an instruction or make petitioner ineligible | Prosecutor’s argument cannot cure lack of an NPC instruction; absence of instruction means no eligibility | Prosecutor argued NPC in closing and court’s earlier voir dire instruction reinforced that theory | Court did not rely on prosecutor’s argument as dispositive; instead found the voir dire instruction itself established eligibility and remanded for an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (establishes prima facie standard and burden-shifting framework under §1172.6)
- People v. Lopez, 78 Cal.App.5th 1 (2022) (trial court must hold evidentiary hearing if record does not establish ineligibility)
- People v. Langi, 73 Cal.App.5th 972 (2022) (instruction on invalid theory satisfies §1172.6(a) requirement)
- People v. Harden, 81 Cal.App.5th 45 (2022) (if no instruction on invalid theories, petitioner may be ineligible as a matter of law)
- People v. Pearson, 56 Cal.4th 393 (2013) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)
- Kelly v. Trans Globe Travel Bureau, Inc., 60 Cal.App.3d 195 (1976) (instructions given during voir dire are read with closing instructions when determining instructional error)