People v. Singh, C075295

In October 2008 Joseph "Joe" Montoya was shot multiple times outside a residence; one shooter fled in a white Acura; Montoya died from a face wound.
Eyewitness Darnell Dabney (later arrested, testified for reduced charge and protection) identified Ravinesh Singh as the shooter and described Singh and co-defendant Tony Van fleeing, disassembling and discarding the gun, burning clothes, and leaving town.
Cell‑phone records and bridge surveillance placed Van, Dabney, and a white Acura near the scene shortly after the killing.
Police searched Singh’s home in 2011 and recovered handwritten rap lyrics whose content paralleled the manner of the killing; some lyrics were admitted at trial.
A jury convicted Singh of first degree murder and found a firearm enhancement true; sentence was 50 years to life (25-to-life murder + 25-to-life enhancement).
On appeal Singh challenged (1) admission of the rap lyrics, (2) allowing alternates to hear a readback of testimony, and (3) denial of a new-trial motion based on a postverdict declaration by Van claiming Dabney was the shooter. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of handwritten rap lyrics found at Singh’s home	Lyrics were relevant to prove intent/identity and corroborated eyewitness testimony	Lyrics were unauthenticated, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial (genre/common phrases; no date)	Admission within trial court’s discretion: lyrics were relevant to intent/identity, not unduly prejudicial; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Alternate jurors present for readback of testimony in deliberation room	Procedure was party‑stipulated and alternates were instructed not to participate; no misconduct shown	Presence violated defendant’s right to jury secrecy and impartial deliberations	Claim forfeited (no timely objection); on merits, alternates’ presence pursuant to stipulation was permissible and no prejudice shown
Denial of motion for new trial based on Van’s postverdict declaration blaming Dabney	New declaration was newly discovered direct evidence that could change the verdict	Declaration was not credible or material given trial evidence and witnesses; court could weigh credibility	Trial court did not abuse discretion: court reasonably found Van’s affidavit not credible and would not likely produce a different verdict on retrial

People v. Lang, 49 Cal.3d 991 (stated defendant’s pre‑murder statements can show intent)
People v. Rodriguez, 42 Cal.3d 730 (threats or statements showing intent admissible when they bring victim within scope)
People v. Olguin, 31 Cal.App.4th 1355 (handwritten rap lyrics admissible to show intent/identity; date of creation not always critical)
People v. Zepeda, 167 Cal.App.4th 25 (song lyrics probative of state of mind and intent; not unduly prejudicial when limited)
People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (no sua sponte limiting instruction required regarding evidence use)
People v. Valles, 24 Cal.3d 121 (alternates may be present during deliberations by stipulation; instruction not to participate required)
Brassfield v. Moreland School Dist., 141 Cal.App.4th 67 (presence of unauthorized alternates analyzed as potential juror misconduct)