People v. Vigil CA4/2
E057420
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 28, 2014Background
- December 25, 2011: Riverside police stopped a Dodge Charger occupied by defendant James Ray Vigil (driver) and Sarah Roberts (passenger); both appeared under the influence.
- Officers found on Roberts a glass methamphetamine pipe and ten baggies containing methamphetamine; a backpack within reach of both occupants contained empty baggies, a gram scale, men’s clothing and men’s deodorant; defendant had $100 and a cell phone with texts suggesting drug deals.
- Neighbor Caroline Sjogren testified to repeated suspicious short exchanges by Vigil at his residence consistent with street-level drug sales.
- Detective expert testified the methamphetamine was packaged for sale and that dealers sometimes hide drugs on female companions to avoid searches.
- Defendant was charged with possession for sale, transportation of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia; jury convicted on all counts; trial court found a strike prior true and sentenced defendant to an aggravated term (doubled).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct sua sponte that Roberts was an accomplice (CALCRIM 334/335) | Omission not reversible because evidence other than Roberts corroborates her testimony | Roberts was an accomplice as a matter of law and failure to give the instruction deprived Vigil of a proper cautionary instruction and required reversal | Court: Roberts was an accomplice but omission was harmless — independent corroborating evidence and jury credibility instructions made reversal not reasonably probable |
| Failure to give limiting instruction for Evidence Code §1101(b) evidence (CALCRIM 375) | No error preserved for appeal; defendant did not press for a ruling after requesting the instruction | Omission was prejudicial and requires reversal | Court: Issue forfeited — defense merely listed the instruction and did not press for ruling or move to exclude §1101(b) evidence; claim not preserved |
| Cumulative error from both omitted instructions | Even if individually harmless, combined errors require reversal | Cumulative errors were prejudicial | Court: No cumulative error — §1101(b) claim not preserved, so no basis for cumulative-error claim |
| Sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice testimony | Corroboration may be slight; here independent evidence (scale, texts, packaging, neighbor testimony, pipe, presence of men’s items in backpack) links Vigil to sales | Defendant contended only Roberts’ testimony tied him to the drugs | Court: Corroboration sufficient to satisfy Penal Code §1111 and negate prejudice from missing accomplice instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Howard, 42 Cal.4th 1000 (explains jury safeguards and caution regarding accomplice testimony)
- People v. Williams, 49 Cal.4th 405 (harmlessness review for omitted accomplice instruction; corroboration need only be slight)
- People v. Szeto, 29 Cal.3d 20 (corroboration must independently tend to connect defendant to the crime)
- People v. Lewis, 26 Cal.4th 334 (accomplice-instruction error may be nonprejudicial where other credibility instructions suffice)
- People v. Ramirez, 39 Cal.4th 398 (to preserve instruction-error claims defendant must request and press for a ruling)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for assessing prejudice under state-law error)