People v. Pettie
16 Cal. App. 5th 23
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- On Dec. 6, 2012 Joseph Delgadillo was assaulted outside a cousin’s house; he later told police he saw Philip Garcia point a gun at him and heard gunshots as he fled. At trial Delgadillo recanted many statements; his prior statements were admitted as prior inconsistent statements.
- Defendants Philip Garcia, Andrew Lanford, and Vincent Pettie were tried for attempted murder, multiple assault counts, two counts of witness-dissuasion, and a substantive gang charge; gang and firearm enhancements were alleged.
- The prosecution presented a gang expert (Deputy Mull) who testified the defendants were Norteño gang members and relied on numerous police reports describing prior contacts; most reports were not authored by Mull and their authors were not produced for cross-examination.
- The jury convicted all defendants on all counts and found all enhancements true; heavy aggregate terms were imposed (including 20‑year firearm enhancements and gang enhancements). The trial court denied pretrial motions to bifurcate/sever gang evidence.
- On appeal the court: (a) affirmed denial of bifurcation and sufficiency of most non‑gang evidence; (b) held admission of case‑specific testimonial hearsay via the gang expert violated Crawford/Sanchez requiring vacatur of gang findings (and vacating related life term); (c) found failure to instruct on mens rea for witness‑dissuasion reversible; (d) found trial court erred by failing sua sponte to give the ‘mere presence’ aid/abet instruction as to Pettie, requiring reversal of Pettie’s convictions on Counts 1–5 (and reversing all counts as to Pettie). Garcia and Lanford’s substantive convictions largely stand except as to the reversed gang findings and the reversed dissuasion counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to bifurcate/sever gang charge and enhancements | AG: gang evidence was cross‑admissible to prove motive, witness fear, and natural/probable‑consequences; limiting instruction sufficed | Defs: gang evidence was unduly prejudicial, inflammatory, and should have been severed | Denial affirmed: gang evidence was probative on motive, witness intimidation, and conspiracy liability and not unduly prejudicial under Mendoza/Hernandez standards |
| Sufficiency of evidence that the Norteños are a unitary criminal street gang (Prunty challenge) | AG: expert evidence showed Norteños’ symbols, primary activities, predicate offenses and hierarchical links sufficient | Defs: evidence showed only separate cliques; Prunty requires nexus between subsets | Affirmed: jury could reasonably find the Norteños a criminal street gang and proof satisfied §186.22 elements under Prunty framework |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder (aiding/abetting or natural & probable consequences) | AG: testimony and victim statements show Garcia shot; Lanford/Pettie liable as aiders or under natural/probable consequence doctrine | Defs: insufficient proof Lanford or Pettie shared intent to kill or participated in shooting | Affirmed for Lanford and Garcia; majority affirms Pettie only on this point but concurrence would reverse Pettie for attempted murder (appellate majority reverses Pettie on other grounds) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for witness‑dissuasion (§136.1 counts 3 & 4) | AG: conduct ("cop caller", questioning, assault, shots fired) shows intent to prevent future reports; supports convictions | Defs: acts show revenge for past report, not intent to prevent future reporting; insufficient specific intent and mens rea instruction omitted | Convictions reversed for Counts 3 and 4 (instructional error on specific intent; Chapman harmlessness not met) |
| Failure to instruct sua sponte on 'mere presence' for aiding/abetting as to Pettie | Defs: evidence supports reasonable inference of mere presence; court must instruct sua sponte | AG: evidence supports active participation; no need for mere‑presence instruction | Error: court had sua sponte duty to give CALCRIM bracketed ‘‘mere presence’’ instruction; omission reversible for Pettie because evidence of participation was weak — Pettie’s Counts 1–5 reversed |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to gang‑expert testimony (Crawford/Sanchez) | Defs: Deputy Mull recited case‑specific police report statements (testimonial) without authors for cross‑examination, violating Sixth Amendment | AG: testimony admissible as expert basis; limiting instruction cured any problem; any error harmless | Reversal in part: admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements via gang expert violated Crawford/Sanchez; gang enhancements and gang‑based life term vacated; error harmless for substantive convictions of Garcia and Lanford but not for Pettie (Pettie’s substantive convictions reversed) |
| Brady claim (failure to disclose witness Patricia Torres’ priors) | Defs: prosecution withheld Patricia’s prior convictions which could impeach her corroborating testimony | AG: nondisclosure inadvertent and priors immaterial | Denied: court finds nondisclosure immaterial under totality—no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Sentencing/pleading defects (e.g., 12022.53 discharge allegation not in info; 12021.5 carry enhancement duplicative) | Defs: lack of formal pleading notice or double enhancements | AG: oral amendment and notice at preliminary hearing sufficed; conceded 12021.5 duplication error | Held: Garcia had adequate notice (informal/oral amendment acceptable); 3‑year §12021.5 term stayed because duplicative of §12022.53(c) enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent prior cross‑examination or unavailability)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (Crawford applies to gang experts who relate case‑specific testimonial hearsay as bases for their opinions)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (prosecution must show associational/organizational connection when proving umbrella gang via conduct of subsets)
- People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (2004) (rules on severance/bifurcation of gang enhancements and when gang evidence is cross‑admissible)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (2011) (permissibility of gang expert hypotheticals grounded in trial evidence)
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (2009) (natural and probable consequences doctrine explained)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)