People v. Ramirez
10 Cal.5th 983
Cal.2021Background
- Defendant Irving Ramirez was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder for shooting San Leandro Police Officer Nels Niemi; jury found firearm enhancements and two special circumstances (murder to avoid arrest; murder of a peace officer) and returned a death verdict.
- At trial the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, defendant’s post‑shooting statements (to girlfriend Ewert and others), efforts to discard the gun and clean up, and motive evidence (prior arrest and probation/search condition); defense emphasized heavy intoxication to negate deliberation/premeditation.
- At penalty the prosecution introduced victim‑impact testimony from Niemi’s family and three fellow officers and admitted a short story written by Niemi; defense presented mitigating family history and alcoholism evidence.
- Key pretrial/trial rulings challenged on appeal included: modification of CALCRIM No. 521 with statutory language (section 189(d)); denial of CALJIC No. 8.71; refusal to exclude a large number of uniformed police spectators; admission of officer victim‑impact testimony and Niemi’s short story; several jury note responses; and imposition of a $10,000 restitution fine.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the conviction and death sentence in all respects, rejecting challenges to the guilt‑phase instructions, courtroom spectator arrangement, penalty‑phase evidence rulings, jury question answers, and restitution fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modification of CALCRIM No. 521 by adding §189(d) language | Modification was proper and clarified law; instruction in statutory language is appropriate | Addition confused jury, lowered burden on deliberation/premeditation, and was improper given intoxication defense | Affirmed — use of statutory language permissible; instructions as a whole prevented confusion (following People v. Smithey) |
| Refusal to give CALJIC No. 8.71 (reasonable doubt as to degree) | CALCRIM instructions adequately conveyed that doubt as to degree requires verdict for lesser degree | Jury needed explicit CALJIC 8.71 wording per §1097/Dewberry | Affirmed — CALCRIM No. 521 and other reasonable‑doubt instructions adequately covered the principle; mixing CALCRIM and CALJIC discouraged |
| Presence of ~17–18 uniformed police officers in gallery | No undue prejudice shown; officers may attend; court took ameliorative steps | Presence was inherently prejudicial and violated fair‑trial rights | Affirmed — under totality of circumstances no unacceptable risk of impermissible influence; trial court did not abuse discretion (Holbrook/Flynn framework) |
| Admission of victim‑impact evidence from fellow officers and Niemi’s short story | Such evidence is relevant to victim uniqueness and impact at penalty; permissible under Payne and state precedent | Officers are non‑family and their testimony and the story were unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code §352 | Affirmed — officers’ testimony and short story were probative, not unduly inflammatory, and allowed for proper penalty consideration |
| $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code §1202.4) | Trial court considered probation report and counsel’s objections; law requires consideration of inability to pay when setting >$200 | Court failed to meaningfully consider defendant’s inability to pay and thus violated statute/constitutional rights | Affirmed — record supports presumption the court considered ability to pay; no showing court failed to apply controlling law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (Cal. 1999) (upholding use of statutory §189(d) language in instruction and rejecting claim it confused jury)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (victim‑impact evidence is admissible unless so unduly prejudicial as to render trial fundamentally unfair)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (presence of uniformed security in gallery not per se inherently prejudicial; requires case‑specific analysis)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (compelling defendant to appear in jail clothing is inherently prejudicial absent essential state policy)
- People v. Dewberry, 51 Cal.2d 548 (Cal. 1959) (jury must convict of lesser included offense where reasonable doubt exists as to degree)
- People v. Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 731 (Cal. 2009) (trial court’s discretion in admitting victim‑impact evidence and weighing §352 concerns)