People v. Pettie, H041739M

Background

In December 2012 Joseph Delgadillo was assaulted outside a family gathering; he originally told police Garcia, Lanford, and Pettie attacked him, saw Garcia point a gun at him, and heard shots as he fled; at trial Delgadillo largely recanted and testified inconsistently.
Defendants Philip Garcia, Andrew Lanford, and Vincent Pettie were tried and convicted of attempted murder, multiple assault counts, witness-dissuasion offenses, and gang-related charges/enhancements; substantial gang-evidence was presented through Deputy Mull (prosecution gang expert).
The prosecution’s gang theory relied on Deputy Mull’s hearsay-based recounting of numerous police contacts and predicate offenses to show the Norteños were a criminal street gang and that the offenses were gang-related.
Pettie’s individual acts at the scene were not specifically described in evidence beyond his presence and a photographic ID; the gang-expert testimony supplied much of the inference of his active participation.
On appeal the court affirmed many rulings but reversed or vacated multiple findings: it vacated all gang-enhancement true findings (Crawford/Sanchez confrontation error), reversed Pettie’s convictions on Counts 1–5 (failure to give mere-presence aiding-and-abetting instruction + reliance on inadmissible hearsay), and reversed Counts 3–4 (witness-dissuasion) for all defendants for failure to instruct on the specific mens rea; several sentencing errors were also corrected and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of pretrial severance/bifurcation of gang charge/enhancements	Gang evidence was integral to motive, witness intimidation, and natural/probable-consequences theories; joinder proper	Gang evidence was unduly prejudicial and unrelated; severance/bifurcation required	Denial of severance/bifurcation was not an abuse of discretion; gang evidence was cross-admissible and probative (Hernandez framework)
Sufficiency of evidence that "Norteños" are a unitary criminal street gang under §186.22 (Prunty challenge)	Prosecution adequately proved the Norteños as a unitary gang and predicate acts to satisfy §186.22	Defendants argued Prunty requires showing organizational nexus among subsets/cliques; prosecution failed	Evidence was sufficient to prove the Norteños as a criminal street gang and that offenses were gang-related (court distinguishes Prunty’s defective proof scenario)
Admission of gang expert testimony recounting case-specific police reports (Confrontation Clause)	Expert testimony recounting police reports was admissible as basis for opinion and limited by instruction	Testimonial out-of-court statements recited as fact by the expert are Crawford/Sanchez testimonial hearsay and required confrontation	Admission of testimonial case-specific hearsay via the gang expert violated the Sixth Amendment; gang enhancement findings and related gang life-term vacated (harmlessness rejected as to gang findings)
Sufficiency of evidence against Pettie and failure to instruct on "mere presence" aiding-and-abetting	Prosecution: Pettie’s gang membership and expert testimony about gang obligations supported inference he aided/abetted	Pettie: only present at scene; no specific acts; jury should have been instructed that mere presence alone is insufficient	Although evidence could support conviction, trial court erred in failing to give the mere-presence instruction sua sponte; error reversible as to Pettie’s Counts 1–5 (convictions reversed)
Failure to instruct on the specific intent/mens rea for witness-dissuasion (Pen. Code §136.1 subdivisions)	Prosecution: conduct and statements ("cop caller"; luring outside; shooting) showed intent to prevent future reports; error harmless	Defendants: evidence could show revenge for past report rather than intent to dissuade future reporting; omission of mens rea instruction fatal	The court conceded the instruction omission was error and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions on Counts 3 and 4 reversed for all defendants

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements absent cross-exam)
People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (gang-expert repetition of case-specific testimonial hearsay violates the Confrontation Clause)
People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (requirements when proving umbrella/aggregate gangs and using subset predicate conduct)
People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004) (standards for bifurcation/severance of gang evidence and cross-admissibility analysis)
People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996) (instructional error harmlessness framework distinguishing Beeman-type errors)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state harmless-error standard for non-constitutional errors)