People v. Tovar
10 Cal. App. 5th 750
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Rafael Tovar (an admitted member of Fremont Mexican Territory, a Norteño subset) was involved in a fight with high‑school football players; he later admitted stabbing and killing Justice Afoa on December 15, 2010.
- Co‑defendants included Daniela Guzman (who provided Afoa’s location via texts) and Daniel Howard (who drove and participated); Howard was also a Norteño gang member.
- Texts and phone calls after the earlier fight showed discussion of retaliation; Guzman bragged that Tovar would kill Afoa and texts reported Afoa’s whereabouts before the killing.
- Gang expert testimony described FMT as a local Norteño subset with violent primary activities and explained how retaliatory violence by a subset can benefit that subset’s reputation among other Norteños.
- The jury convicted Tovar of first‑degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, found true a weapon enhancement, and found the gang enhancement true as to the conspiracy count but not the murder count.
- Tovar appealed solely arguing insufficient evidence supported the §186.22(b) gang enhancement tied to the conspiracy conviction; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the §186.22(b) gang enhancement for the conspiracy conviction | Prosecution: evidence showed Tovar conspired to murder to benefit his local FMT subset (membership, tattoos, communications, expert testimony linking retaliatory murder to subset benefit). | Tovar: insufficient proof linking the FMT subset to the larger Norteño umbrella per People v. Prunty; membership alone cannot substitute for intent to benefit the gang. | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports that Tovar intended to benefit FMT in particular; expert testimony plus Tovar’s admitted FMT membership permitted the jury inference. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (when predicate offenses are proved by crimes of various subsets, prosecution must link subsets; unnecessary if subset itself meets gang‑definition elements)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of gang enhancement evidence)
- People v. Rios, 222 Cal.App.4th 542 (2013) (trial courts and appellate courts should generally follow Supreme Court dicta when reflecting considered reasoning)