People v. Stevenson CA3, C089872

Background

At ~12:20 a.m., Stevenson (driving with BAC 0.15%) crashed into two parked cars and left the scene with passenger Antonio Moreno; both were later confronted by Yuba City Officer Charanpreet Singh.
Singh ordered them to stop; Moreno adopted an aggressive stance, Singh struck Moreno with a baton, then was knocked unconscious and repeatedly had his head slammed into pavement by Stevenson.
Witnesses (Castner, Medina) observed Stevenson lift and slam Singh’s head into concrete multiple times; Singh suffered a hematoma, concussion, and lasting postconcussive symptoms.
Moreno, while being transported after arrest, threatened officers and declared he was a Norteño gang member; a gang expert opined both men were active Norteño members and explained gang norms (e.g., aiding fellow members, retaliating against perceived cowardice).
A jury convicted Stevenson of attempted murder of a peace officer, assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, gang participation, and DUI-related offenses; sentence included 15 years-to-life (attempted murder).
On appeal Stevenson argued: (1) venire should have been dismissed for gang-related juror bias; (2) Moreno’s postarrest statements were inadmissible; (3) counsel was ineffective for not requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction; and (4) insufficient evidence of intent to kill. The Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Stevenson)	Held
1. Whether court abused discretion by not dismissing entire venire after jurors voiced fear of gang retaliation	Venire dismissal unnecessary; trial court properly excused biased jurors and gave curative instruction	Juror comments (fear of gang retaliation) tainted the entire panel such that venire should be dismissed	No abuse of discretion; dismissal of entire venire is drastic and not warranted where individual jurors were excused and court probed others (affirmed)
2. Admissibility of Moreno’s postarrest statement (threat & gang ID)	Highly probative of gang participation and §186.22 enhancements; admission proper despite being post-arrest	Statement occurred after incident and was prejudicial/cumulative under Evid. Code §352; undue risk jury would attribute Moreno’s threats to defendant	Admissible: relevant to gang elements and enhancements; probative value outweighed prejudice; not reversible error
3. Ineffective assistance for failing to request a voluntary intoxication instruction	Counsel had tactical reasons to pursue self-defense theory over intoxication; omission reasonable	Counsel should have requested instruction because strong evidence of intoxication existed and it could negate specific intent	No ineffective assistance: strategic choice reasonably explained; requesting instruction could have undermined defense strategy; no prejudice shown
4. Sufficiency of evidence of specific intent to kill for attempted murder	Witnesses observed repeated deliberate head‑slams to a vulnerable area while victim was unconscious; injuries and lifting before smashing support intent	Lack of skull fracture and nonfatal result show no intent to kill	Evidence sufficient: intent to kill may be inferred from repeated, forceful attacks to the head and surrounding facts (conviction affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

People v. Medina, 51 Cal.3d 870 (venire dismissal is a drastic remedy; trial judge best gauges juror bias)
People v. Martinez, 228 Cal.App.3d 1456 (trial court’s discretion to assess juror prejudice)
Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630 (9th Cir.) (prospective juror’s expert‑like voir dire can taint panel)
People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (harmless‑error/miscarriage of justice standard)
People v. Soto, 4 Cal.5th 968 (scope of voluntary intoxication evidence re: intent)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)