People v. Pettie, H041739

Background

On Dec. 6, 2012 Joseph Delgadillo was attacked outside his cousin’s house; he later told police he was beaten, hit on the head with a hard object, saw Philip Garcia point a gun at him, and heard gunshots as he fled. At trial Delgadillo recanted and testified inconsistently; prior statements to police were admitted as prior inconsistent statements.
Defendants Philip Garcia, Andrew Lanford, and Vincent Pettie were tried and convicted of attempted murder, various assault counts, two counts of witness dissuasion, and gang-related charges/enhancements; jury found all counts and enhancements true and the court imposed long aggregate terms.
The prosecution presented gang-expert testimony (Deputy Mull) tying the defendants to the Norteño gang via tattoos, clothing, prior police contacts, and predicate offenses; defense presented a rebuttal gang expert.
Pretrial motions to bifurcate/sever gang allegations were denied; the court admitted many police-report-based contacts through the gang expert over confrontation objections.
On appeal the court affirmed many rulings (including joinder and most sufficiency challenges) but found Sixth Amendment confrontation and several instructional and sentencing errors requiring partial reversal/remand: vacating all gang findings, reversing Counts 3 and 4 (witness-dissuasion) as to Garcia and Lanford, reversing all convictions as to Pettie, and correcting firearm sentencing errors.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Defendants’ Argument	Held
Denial of bifurcation/severance of gang charge/enhancements	Gang evidence was integral to proving motive, witness fear/reluctance, and natural-and-probable-consequences liability; cross-admissible with substantive counts.	Gang evidence was prejudicial and not sufficiently tied to the charged offenses; should be severed or bifurcated.	Denial affirmed: gang evidence was cross-admissible, probative of motive/witness fear/conspiracy, and probative value outweighed prejudice.
Sufficiency of evidence that “Norteños” constituted a unitary criminal street gang (Prunty challenge) and that offenses were gang-related	Expert testimony (symbols, tattoos, numbers, leadership structure, predicate offenses) showed Norteños’ primary activities and unity; evidence supported gang enhancements.	Evidence showed disparate local cliques/subsets; prosecution failed to show nexus required under Prunty.	Held sufficient: evidence supported a unitary Norteño gang and that offenses were committed for gang benefit; Prunty did not defeat the prosecution’s theory here.
Admission of gang expert testimony repeating case‑specific police-report facts (confrontation/Sanchez/Crawford)	Expert relied on many sources beyond reports (tattoos, attire, training); any error harmless as substantive convictions supported by other evidence.	Use of out‑of‑court testimonial police-report statements through the expert violated the Confrontation Clause and Sanchez.	Reversal required as to all gang-related enhancement findings and the gang life term; inadmissible testimonial hearsay likely contributed to verdicts (not harmless for gang findings and for Pettie’s substantive convictions).
Jury instructions: failure to give ‘mere presence’ and failure to instruct mens rea for witness dissuasion	Sufficient evidence showed intent; any instructional omissions were harmless.	Trial court had sua sponte duty to instruct that mere presence alone cannot establish aiding/abetting; and must instruct on specific intent for §136.1 offenses.	Court found sua sponte error: failure to give mere‑presence instruction required reversing Pettie’s Counts 1–5; failure to instruct on intent for Counts 3–4 required reversal of those convictions (harmlessness not shown).

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay admitted without cross‑examination violates the Sixth Amendment)
People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (gang‑expert repetition of case‑specific testimonial hearsay is barred by the Confrontation Clause)
People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (limits on proving a "criminal street gang" when prosecution relies on conduct of disparate subsets without showing organizational nexus)
People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004) (principles for severance/bifurcation of gang enhancements; gang evidence often inextricably intertwined with guilt)
People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2011) (permissibility of gang‑expert hypotheticals tied to the evidence)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 2009) (natural‑and‑probable‑consequences foreseeability standard for accomplice liability)