People v. Prieto CA5
F068805
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Defendant Paul Prieto was convicted by a jury of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon; jury also found firearm-use enhancements for counts 1–4. After a court trial, the court found two prior serious/strike convictions and three prior prison terms; sentence aggregated to 40 years plus 50 years to life.
- Facts: victims were walking when a silver Dodge Magnum stopped; the driver (identified at trial as Prieto) displayed a chrome semiautomatic, ordered victims to empty pockets and remove boots/chains, then left with property; several victims identified Prieto within ~90 minutes of the robbery.
- Officers later found the Dodge, detained three men including Prieto; officers observed a holster and an ID for the passenger (Medina) in the car; officers recovered victims’ bank/credit cards in the patrol vehicle after transporting Prieto.
- Defense: Prieto claimed Medina was the gunman, and Prieto had locked his keys in the car and did not handle the gun. Prieto had lost fingers on his right hand in a 2005 accident and testified he could not hold a firearm in his right hand; cross-examination elicited facts of prior weapon-related convictions (postdating the injury) relevant to impeachment.
- Trial rulings at issue: (1) prosecutor permitted to elicit facts underlying some prior convictions for impeachment after Prieto’s testimony about his hand; (2) court instructed with CALCRIM No. 225 (intent via circumstantial evidence) rather than CALCRIM No. 224 (general circumstantial-evidence sufficiency); (3) verdict forms used the word “PROVEN” for firearm enhancements rather than “TRUE.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of facts underlying prior convictions on cross-exam (impeachment) | Facts were relevant to rebut Prieto’s claim he could not have held a gun; limited questioning was permissible to test credibility | Court improperly allowed jurors to hear facts of prior crimes; should be limited to conviction existence, not details | Admission of the underlying facts for impeachment was within trial court discretion given Prieto opened the issue; any error harmless given overwhelming ID evidence |
| Use of CALCRIM No. 225 instead of No. 224 | CALCRIM No. 225 properly tailored because intent/mental state (circumstantial) was the only element resting mainly on circumstantial evidence | Court should have given CALCRIM No. 224 (general circumstantial sufficiency) because circumstantial evidence was important | No error: identity was proven largely by direct eyewitness testimony; circumstantial evidence was corroborative, so CALCRIM No. 225 was appropriate |
| Verdict form language for firearm enhancements: "proven" vs "true" | No substantive difference; jury was instructed on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and "proven" is synonymous with "true" | Formal statutory requirement uses the word "true," so verdicts using "proven" are defective and enhancements should be stricken | Instruction and forms showed jurors applied beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; word choice was immaterial and enhancements remain valid |
| Harmlessness of any evidentiary error | Any erroneous admission was harmless given multiple identifications, corroborative physical evidence (holster, cards), and defendant’s admission of presence | Erroneous admission of details of prior crimes prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial | Court applied People v. Watson standard and concluded no reasonable probability of a different result; any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Contreras, 58 Cal.4th 123 (2013) (relevance definition includes credibility evidence)
- People v. Hawthorne, 46 Cal.4th 67 (2009) (prior conduct may impeach witness credibility)
- People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (2011) (trial court’s broad discretion to admit impeachment evidence)
- People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (2004) (CALCRIM 225 appropriate where only intent rests substantially on circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (2006) (sua sponte instruction required when prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence)
- People v. Watson, 43 Cal.4th 652 (2008) (Watson harmless-error standard applied to wrongly admitted evidence)