People v. Salazar
63 Cal. 4th 214
| Cal. | 2016Background
- In 1993 Magdaleno Salazar ("defendant") was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of Enrique Guevara; jury found a special-circumstance allegation true based on a prior murder conviction and returned a death verdict.
- Eyewitnesses (Kathy Mendez, Emilio Antelo, Patrick Turner) and physical evidence (12 nine‑mm casings, 3 .25 cal casings, multiple gunshot wounds) implicated defendant and co‑actor Enrique Echeverría; Echeverría later testified he shot Guevara and had been convicted (defense theory).
- Defendant admitted the prior murder conviction (committed at age 17 and tried as an adult) used as the section 190.2(a)(2) special circumstance.
- Pretrial and selection issues: court conducted group death‑qualification voir dire using four self‑classification categories; defense contended voir dire was inadequate and three venire members were not death‑qualified; defense failed to preserve some objections.
- Trial rulings challenged on appeal included: constitutionality of using a juvenile murder conviction as a special circumstance, adequacy of voir dire/death‑qualification, exclusion of evidence that Echeverría was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, various instructional and penalty‑phase claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People/Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Salazar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of juvenile murder conviction as a section 190.2(a)(2) special circumstance | Prior adult conviction (even if the prior offense occurred when defendant was a juvenile) may be considered to narrow death‑eligible class; focus is on the conduct/conviction, not offender's age | Eighth Amendment bars using a juvenile murder conviction to make defendant death‑eligible (Roper principles); unconstitutional and unfair given juvenile transfer discretion | Court rejected claim: use of a prior murder conviction (tried and convicted as an adult) as special circumstance is constitutional; Roper applies to punishment for juvenile offenses, not to using juvenile convictions as aggravators or eligibility predicates. |
| Adequacy of voir dire / death‑qualification (group voir dire; omitted questioning of three venirepersons) | Group voir dire permitted by statute and precedent; court adequately explained penalty procedure and death‑qualification; defense had opportunity to submit questions and object but failed to preserve some complaints | Group voir dire and the court's method were inadequate, hurried, relied on self‑classification, and omitted death‑qualification of some venirepersons (producing Juror No. 10) | Court found voir dire method within broad discretion; most objections forfeited; oversight in questioning some panelists was forfeited by defense inaction and did not show prejudice on the record. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of first‑degree murder (premeditation, nonself‑defense) | Eyewitness testimony, shell casings pattern, defendant armed and told Echeverría to retrieve a gun, shots from distance, multiple wounds—supports premeditation, deliberation, and not justified self‑defense | Defense argued Echeverría alone shot Guevara in close combat (self‑defense); defendant contended evidence insufficient to show he acted with malice/premeditation | Court held evidence was sufficient: reasonable juror could find planning (guns brought, commands to get gun), medium‑range shooting, and that defendant acted as aggressor; conviction stands. |
| Exclusion of evidence that Echeverría was convicted of voluntary manslaughter / use of that conviction in mitigation | Prosecution argued nature of co‑actor’s prior conviction was irrelevant and misleading; prior sentence of accomplice not admissible as mitigation | Defendant sought to show Echeverría’s manslaughter conviction to reduce Salazar’s culpability or as mitigating evidence | Court upheld exclusion: specifics of Echeverría’s conviction were irrelevant/misleading; accomplice’s sentence/conviction is not constitutionally relevant mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juveniles categorically less culpable; Eighth Amendment bars death for crimes committed under 18)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (trial court has discretion to exclude jurors whose views would substantially impair duties)
- Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (death‑qualification process upheld against claims of jury bias)
- People v. Bivert, 52 Cal.4th 96 (juvenile violent conduct may be considered as aggravating evidence at penalty phase)
- People v. Manduley, 27 Cal.4th 537 (juvenile transfer and prosecutorial discretion do not violate due process/equal protection)
- People v. Trevino, 26 Cal.4th 237 (prior murder conviction abroad or when juvenile may form basis for special circumstance; focus on conduct not age)
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (no entitlement to instruction on lesser related offenses)
- People v. Proctor, 4 Cal.4th 499 (instructions regarding double‑counting aggravators require request; not sua sponte)