People v. Windfield
208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 47
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Windfield and Johnson were Ramona Blocc Hustla gang members convicted of murder and related offenses.
- The murder occurred on June 11, 2009, after prior threats and a chase involving the victims and gang members.
- Nikki, a key eyewitness from the preliminary hearing, was located and her testimony was admitted under evidence rules despite questions about due diligence.
- The jury found both defendants guilty of first degree murder with firearm enhancements and of attempted murder with gang enhancement.
- Windfield was 18 at the time of the crimes and Johnson was 17; both received lengthy prison terms, with Windfield challenging parts as cruel and unusual punishment.
- The Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of Franklin, prompting remand for Johnson’s sentencing record and juvenile-offender procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Nikki’s preliminary hearing testimony | People argues due diligence shown for witness relocation | Windfield argues due diligence not proven | De novo: due diligence found sufficient; admission proper |
| Sufficiency of kill zone theory for attempted murder | People rely on Bland/Stone to support kill zone | Windfield disputes applicability | Kill zone theory upheld; sufficient evidence for attempted murder in zone |
| Jury instruction on provocation and attempted murder | CALCRIM No. 522 and heat-of-passion concepts applied | Counsel not required to sua sponte give 522-like instruction | No reversible error; no basis to separate provocation for murder vs attempted murder |
| Guns enhancements and information amendments | Amendments sufficiently reflected enhancements | Procedural irregularities at amendment | Amendments deemed valid; strike references to certain firearm findingsNonetheless |
| Cruel and unusual punishment challenges to Johnson/Windfield sentences | Franklin/Graham framework applies; youth should be considered | Mandatory LWOP inappropriate for juveniles; but SB 260/3051 mootness | Johnson remanded for Franklin-record; Windfield’s 25-to-life deemed moot;youth considerations acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2002) (kill zone theory explained; concurrent intent to kill others in zone possible)
- People v. Stone, 46 Cal.4th 131 (Cal. 2009) (application of kill zone when primary target killed but others injured)
- Adams v. State, 169 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Cal. 2008) (kill zone liability for victims within zone of harm)
- People v. Campos, 156 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. 2007) (kill zone inference is a permissible jury tool)
- McCloud v. Smith, 211 Cal.App.4th 788 (Cal. 2012) (restrictive view of kill zone; not controlling here)
- People v. Smith, 37 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2005) (kill zone discussion cited; distinguish Bland)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (youth offender parole and Franklin remand guidance)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile LWOP considerations (parens))