People v. Salvador
A142488A
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 5, 2017Background
- Defendant Humberto Salvador, a Sureno/CSL gang member, was convicted of multiple sexual assaults, kidnapping, carjacking, robbery, and gang-related offenses arising from a December 13, 2008 attack; DNA and physical evidence linked him to the victim.
- Jury found numerous special allegations true, including gang enhancements and hate-motivated acts; convictions included indeterminate life terms under the One Strike statute (Pen. Code § 667.61) on several counts.
- Prosecution called two gang experts (Detective Reina and Sgt. Palmieri) who testified about CSL membership and relied in part on out-of-court statements and tattoos, eliciting defense claims of testimonial hearsay and confrontation- clause error under Crawford.
- Defense argued (1) expert testimony relied on inadmissible testimonial hearsay and cross-examination was improperly restricted; (2) voluntary intoxication instruction (CALCRIM No. 3426, modified) omitted some specific-intent offenses; and (3) sentencing error: 10-year gang enhancements (§ 186.22(b)(1)(C)) were improperly imposed on counts carrying life terms under the One Strike law.
- Court found some testimonial hearsay was presented by experts but concluded any error was harmless under Sanchez; held intoxication instruction omission was erroneous but harmless; and ruled (published portion) that 10-year gang enhancements cannot attach to indeterminate life terms imposed under § 667.61 and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / Confrontation: gang expert reliance on out-of-court statements | Testimony was proper background/expert opinion; no timely objections; statements not offered for truth | Expert relied on testimonial hearsay (co-defendant admissions, tattoos explained by out-of-court declarants); violated Crawford and Sanchez | Some expert testimony contained testimonial hearsay as to case-specific facts, but admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Sanchez; no reversible confrontation error |
| Restriction of cross-examination of gang expert | Court properly limited repetitive/marginal cross-examination; defense not prejudiced | Restrictions prevented showing bias and undermined Confrontation Clause rights | Trial court’s limitations were within discretion; defendant did not show they would have produced a significantly different credibility impression; claim rejected |
| Voluntary intoxication instruction (CALCRIM No. 3426) | Modified instruction correctly limited intoxication to some specific-intent crimes and enhancements | Instruction omitted some specific-intent counts (kidnapping, aiding/abetting oral copulation), depriving jury of considering intoxication for those counts | Instruction was erroneous for omission but the error was harmless given the other instructions and the jury’s findings rejecting intoxication as mitigation |
| Sentencing: 10-year gang enhancements on One Strike indeterminate life terms | 186.22(b)(1)(C) enhancements may apply; One Strike and STEP Act objectives can coexist | 10-year enhancements cannot attach to crimes "punishable by life" under §186.22(b)(5); Lopez logic extends to One Strike life terms | Court held Lopez controls: §186.22(b)(5) bars 10-year enhancements against indeterminate life terms imposed under §667.61; struck/enumerated enhancements and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (experts may not relate case-specific testimonial hearsay relied on as true without confrontation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay triggers confrontation right)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishing testimonial statements made in ongoing emergencies)
- People v. Lopez, 34 Cal.4th 1002 (2005) (§ 186.22(b)(5) precludes 10-year gang enhancement for felonies punishable by life)
- People v. Montes, 31 Cal.4th 350 (2003) (distinguishing enhancements from penalty provisions for life terms)
- People v. Jones, 47 Cal.4th 566 (2009) (distinguishing penalties from enhancements; interpretive guidance on life-term language)
- People v. Acosta, 29 Cal.4th 105 (2002) (One Strike law is an alternative penalty, not an enhancement)
- People v. Williams, 227 Cal.App.4th 733 (2014) (applied Lopez/Jones logic to bar 10-year enhancements on Three Strikes life terms)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (expert may rely on inadmissible hearsay for opinion but not present it as fact)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard for federal constitutional errors)