People v. Soto
248 Cal. App. 4th 884
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Juaquin Garcia Soto kicked in the front door of an apartment, encountered Israel Ramirez and Patricia Saavedra, and a knife fight ensued; Ramirez died from stab wounds.
- Saavedra testified Soto stabbed Ramirez first; Soto testified Ramirez stabbed him first and claimed self-defense; Soto had been using alcohol and methamphetamine in the days before the incident.
- Jury convicted Soto of second-degree murder and first-degree burglary and found true knife-use enhancements; sentence aggregated to 16 years to life.
- Trial court instructed the jury with a modified CALCRIM No. 625 limiting consideration of voluntary intoxication to specific-intent/malice questions and precluding its use for imperfect self-defense.
- Court excluded certain post-arrest exculpatory statements Soto made to police; prosecution admitted his denial of harder drug use as party-opponent evidence.
- Soto appealed, arguing (1) the intoxication instruction improperly prevented the jury from considering intoxication in evaluating imperfect self-defense, and (2) the court erred in excluding his pretrial statements and defense counsel was ineffective for not offering them as prior consistent statements.
Issues
| Issue | People s Argument | Soto s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction excluding consideration of voluntary intoxication for imperfect self-defense was legal | Instruction correct or forfeited; CALCRIM No. 625 properly limits intoxication evidence to specific intent/deliberation questions | Section 29.4 allows intoxication evidence as to express malice; imperfect self-defense negates express malice, so intoxication is relevant to imperfect self-defense | Instruction was erroneous because it likely precluded consideration of intoxication as to imperfect self-defense, but error was harmless under state-law Watson standard |
| Whether trial court erred by excluding Soto s post-arrest statements and whether counsel was ineffective for not offering them as prior consistent statements | Statements properly excluded as hearsay; denial of drug use admissible separately; prior consistent exception inapplicable because statements were made after motive to fabricate arose | Statements were admissible as prior consistent evidence and counsel ineffective for failing to offer them | Exclusion was proper: statements were made after Soto had motive to fabricate (he was under arrest), so Evidence Code §791 did not admit them; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (discusses how unreasonable self-defense and heat of passion negate malice)
- People v. Mendoza, 18 Cal.4th 1114 (erroneous exclusion of intoxication evidence reviewed as state-law error; reversal only if reasonably probable outcome affected)
- People v. Flannel, 25 Cal.3d 668 (honest but unreasonable belief in need for self-defense negates malice and reduces murder to manslaughter)
- People v. Whitfield, 7 Cal.4th 437 (addressed intoxication and malice; prompted statutory change)
- People v. Jones, 30 Cal.4th 1084 (prior consistent statements admissible if made before additional motive to fabricate arose)
- People v. Saille, 54 Cal.3d 1103 (voluntary intoxication instructions required on request; malice/intoxication principles)
- People v. Turk, 164 Cal.App.4th 1361 (upheld CALCRIM No. 625 on facts where imperfect self-defense not asserted)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (federal harmless-error standard)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (plurality/concurrence/dissent on constitutionality of statutes limiting intoxication evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)