People v. Roberts
D069355
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Antwaren Roberts was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon; the jury also found true gang enhancements (Pen. Code § 186.22(b)(1)).
- Facts: victim Krystal Sharkey (with WCC ties) was shot twice; multiple eyewitness identifications and motive evidence (prior disputes, alleged snitching, and a chain assault) linked Roberts to the shooting.
- Gang evidence: prosecution gang expert relied primarily on Roberts’s un-Mirandized jail intake admissions in 2004 and 2006 that he was a West Coast Crips (WCC) member, plus photos, a nickname, and an alleged jail assault video.
- Defense disputed presence at the scene (alibi) and argued the shooting was personal revenge, not gang-motivated; defense also raised discovery and witness-intimidation concerns at trial.
- Procedural posture: Court of Appeal affirmed convictions on substantive counts but reversed the true findings on the gang enhancements and remanded for possible retrial of those enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of un-Mirandized jail intake admissions of gang membership | People argued Elizalde does not bar use of prior booking admissions made years earlier when offered to prove later gang enhancements | Roberts argued Elizalde bars admission because booking questions about gang affiliation are Miranda-protected and such admissions were elicited without Miranda warnings | Admissions in 2004 and 2006 were inadmissible under Elizalde; their admission violated Fifth Amendment principles and required reversal of the gang enhancements |
| Prejudice standard for constitutional evidentiary error | People: any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other evidence | Roberts: erroneous confession was highly probative and likely contributed to the gang findings | Under Chapman, the court concluded the erroneous admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversed the gang enhancements |
| Late disclosure of Sharkey interview CD and text messages (discovery) | People: disclosure occurred as soon as information was known; Norton’s report referenced the CD; texts were provided immediately upon discovery | Roberts: late disclosure prejudiced defense preparation and impaired counsel performance; requested jury instruction (CALCRIM 306) or dismissal | Court found no prejudicial violation: (1) Norton’s report disclosed the CD’s substance; (2) texts were turned over immediately and a recess/recall cured prejudice; denial of CALCRIM 306 not an abuse of discretion |
| Alleged witness intimidation at courthouse | Roberts argued police intimidated a potential defense witness, violating Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses | People argued record insufficient on appeal to resolve factual questions | Court held claim not resolvable on direct appeal (facts not in record); directed remedy is writ proceedings, not reversal on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elizalde, 61 Cal.4th 523 (Cal. 2015) (booking questions about gang affiliation go beyond the limited Miranda booking exception and un-Mirandized answers are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (objective Innis test: interrogation includes practices police should know are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (recognizes narrow booking-question exception for routine biographical data)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional error requires reversal unless prosecution shows error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (limits expert reliance on case-specific out-of-court statements without confrontation safeguards)
- People v. Stewart, 33 Cal.4th 425 (Cal. 2004) (defendant who fails to seek timely writ relief for preliminary hearing irregularities must show trial unfairness to obtain appellate relief)
- In re Martin, 44 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1987) (prosecutorial or law enforcement intimidation of witnesses may require new trial; fact-specific and often requires writ proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Cahill, 5 Cal.4th 478 (Cal. 1993) (confessions are particularly prejudicial; improper admission is likely to affect outcome)