People v. ChavezPeople v. Chavez
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Benke
Following a physical altercation involving two groups of men, defendant Salvador Oswaldo Chavez knifed a member of the other group in the back and defendant Daniel Arce Gonzalez shot and killed another member of that group. Chavez and Gonzalez appeal judgments following their jury convictions of second degree murder (
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2014, the Rincon Del Mar restaurant in National City was filled with customers, many of whom were there to watch the World Cup
After the match, Rafael argued with Morfin in front of the restaurant about whether he had a problem with his brother Vicente. When Morfin approached Vicente, Vicente punched him in the face, causing him to fall to the ground unconscious. Vicente and Rafael beat Morfin while he was unconscious on the ground. Meanwhile, Gonzalez hit Aguilar in the face, causing him to fall unconscious onto Lujan who had been standing nearby. While on the ground, Lujan was punched by Gonzalez. Lujan escaped by crawling under a flatbed truck that was parked on the street directly in front of the restaurant. When Lujan tried to get out from under the truck, Gonzalez kicked him in the face. From under the truck, Lujan saw Gonzalez pacing back and forth, holding a pistol by his side. During the fight, Gonzalez and Chavez at times were back-to-back and then face-to-face. Other members of the two groups also began fighting with each other.
After Juan Carlos Lopez, the restaurant‘s owner, broke up the initial physical altercation, the combatants moved away from the restaurant. Rafael and Vicente ran southward as Eddie Lopez chased them.3 When Eddie Lopez was about 15 feet away from them, he threw a beer bottle at them, possibly striking one of them, and then ran back toward the restaurant. While Eddie Lopez was running after them, Gonzalez ran in Eddie Lopez‘s direction and, from a distance, pointed a gun at his back. Crook, who had just come out of the restaurant, and Lujan approached Gonzalez from behind and Crook tapped him on the shoulder. Gonzalez spun around and shot Crook twice at point-blank range, striking him in the chest near his armpit and in the upper right side of his back.4 Immediately before being shot, Crook put up his hands and began turning away from Gonzalez. Except for possibly a plastic cup, Crook did not have anything in his hands at the time and no weapons were found on or near him. Gonzalez then pointed his gun at Lujan, but Juan Carlos Lopez intervened and begged him not to shoot. Crook died from his gunshot injuries.
While Eddie Lopez was running away from the Gutierrez brothers, he saw Chavez chasing after him with a knife in his hand. However, immediately
Gonzalez was arrested in Mexico and extradited to the United States. Police searched Chavez‘s house and found two folding knives and clothing matching what he was seen wearing on the day of the shooting. Juan Carlos Lopez told police the restaurant‘s surveillance camera was inoperable because a car crashed into the restaurant two to three weeks before the shooting. However, police searched the restaurant and found a flash drive containing a five- to seven-minute video recording from one of its surveillance cameras, which recording showed, inter alia, the initial physical altercation between the two group‘s members and Crook placing an object on the flatbed truck and then picking it back up before the shooting. During a police interview, Juan Carlos Lopez admitted he initially lied about not seeing who shot Crook because he feared retaliation. Cell phone records showed there were 12 calls between Gonzalez‘s phone and Chavez‘s phone on the day of the shooting.
An information charged Gonzalez and Chavez with the murder of Crook (
At the joint trial of Gonzalez and Chavez, the prosecution presented evidence substantially as described ante. In his defense, Gonzalez presented, inter alia, the testimony of Roldan, who stated he was hit during the fight and knocked to the ground. Roldan did not see either Gonzalez or Chavez attack or shoot anyone. In his defense, Chavez presented the testimony of Scott Fraser, an eyewitness identification expert, who testified generally about how alcohol, memory convergence, and stress could result in an eyewitness‘s faulty memory. The jury found Gonzalez and Chavez guilty on both counts and found true the firearm allegation.6 The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to an indeterminate term of 40 years to life in prison plus a consecutive determinate term of seven years.7 The court sentenced Chavez to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison plus a consecutive
DISCUSSION
I
Admission of Eddie Lopez‘s Identification of Chavez
Chavez contends, and Gonzalez joins in his contention, that the trial court erred by admitting Eddie Lopez‘s in-court identification of him (Chavez) as the man who stabbed him. In particular, Chavez argues Eddie Lopez‘s in-court identification was the result of a pretrial identification procedure that was unduly suggestive and that pretrial identification was unreliable under the totality of the circumstances.
A
Before trial, Chavez filed an in limine motion to exclude evidence of Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification of him as the man who stabbed him in the back. Noting that during a pretrial interview with police Eddie Lopez described his attacker as wearing a red T-shirt and blue jeans and the police detective showed him only his (Chavez‘s) photograph, he argued Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification was unduly suggestive and should be excluded because there were at least two people wearing red shirts and blue jeans. He also argued the photograph shown Eddie Lopez depicted him (Chavez) holding something in his hand, which made the pretrial identification more suggestive.
The prosecutor opposed the motion, arguing Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification was not unduly suggestive and was reliable based on the totality of the circumstances. The prosecutor described the circumstances of that pretrial identification. On June 25, 2014, eight days after the incident, National City Police Detectives Depascale and Ballardo interviewed Eddie Lopez at the
At the hearing on Chavez‘s motion, counsel repeated the arguments they made in their papers. Chavez argued he did not want Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification of him to be admitted as a “backhanded” identification even though the prosecutor apparently planned to have Eddie Lopez identify him (Chavez) as his assailant at trial. The trial court commented: “So really the issue is whether that identification impacts [Eddie] Lopez[‘s] identification of Mr. Chavez at trial.” The court denied the motion, finding there was nothing unduly suggestive about the pretrial identification.
At trial, Eddie Lopez testified regarding the incident and, in particular, described the man he saw running after him holding a knife. He described the man as “[j]ust a little heavyset, red t-shirt, blue jeans.” From a distance of about 10 feet, he saw the man holding a knife with a blade that was “maybe a couple of inches long.” When shown the surveillance camera photograph of Chavez, Eddie Lopez stated it “looks like the guy that was running behind me” and confirmed it was a fair and accurate photograph of that man. He thought he remembered telling the man to put the knife down. When asked whether he saw that man in court, Eddie Lopez stated: “I‘m not sure. I mean
Detective Depascale testified at trial and stated he and Detective Ballardo had spoken with Eddie Lopez on about June 25, 2014, at the police station. He stated they did not show Eddie Lopez the video recording from the surveillance camera, but had shown him about five still photographs from that recording. On cross-examination, Chavez‘s counsel asked Depascale: “When [Eddie] Lopez identified the man in the red shirt, isn‘t it true that Detective Ybarra [sic] came in and showed him a picture, correct?” Depascale replied, “Yes, came in and placed a picture on the interview room table.” Chavez‘s counsel asked: “And the picture only had the man in the red shirt on it, correct?” Depascale replied, “No, sir.” Chavez‘s counsel then asked Depascale questions about a still photograph (exh. No. 14) that had been taken from the surveillance video recording.
B
“In order to determine whether the admission of identification evidence violates a defendant‘s constitutional right to due process of law, we consider (1) whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and unnecessary, and, if so, (2) whether the identification itself was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances, taking into account such factors as the opportunity of the witness to view the suspect at the time of the offense, the witness‘s degree of attention at the time of the offense, the accuracy of his or her prior description of the suspect, the level of certainty demonstrated at the time of the identification, and the lapse of time between the offense and the identification.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 989 (Cunningham).) A single person showup, or a single person photograph, is not inherently unfair or suggestive. (People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 136; People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 413 (Ochoa).) “Showing the witnesses a single photo of the defendant is no more impermissibly suggestive than an in-court identification with the defendant personally sitting at the defense counsel table in the courtroom.” (People v. Yonko (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1008-1009.) A single person photograph is analogous to a single person showup that “may pose a danger of suggestiveness, but such lineups or showups are not
The defendant has the burden of demonstrating an identification procedure was unduly suggestive or unreliable. (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 700.) On appeal, we review de novo, or independently, a trial court‘s conclusion whether or not an identification procedure is unduly suggestive or unreliable under the totality of the circumstances. (Id. at pp. 698-699.) If an identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, there is no violation of a defendant‘s due process right. (Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 412.) If a defendant‘s federal constitutional right to due process is violated, reversal of the defendant‘s conviction is required unless the People show that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman).)
C
Chavez asserts Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification of him as his assailant was the result of the impermissibly suggestive identification procedure used by the National City Police detectives during their pretrial interview of Eddie Lopez and his pretrial identification was also unreliable under the totality of the circumstances. Chavez therefore argues the trial court erred by admitting Eddie Lopez‘s in-court identification of him (Chavez) as his assailant, which identification was the result of, or tainted by, his pretrial identification.8 However, based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that the pretrial identification procedure used by the detectives was not unduly
During their pretrial interview of Eddie Lopez, the detectives first questioned him and ascertained his detailed version of events before showing him photographs of various persons from the restaurant‘s surveillance camera video recording. After not recognizing any of those persons as his assailant, Eddie Lopez stated: “There was another guy, a fat, short guy in a red t-shirt and blue jeans. He‘s the one who stabbed me.” Detective Ballardo left the room and returned with a single photograph depicting a man wearing a red shirt and blue jeans (i.e., Chavez, per his own subsequent admission to police) obtained from the surveillance camera video recording. Without saying anything, Ballardo placed the photograph in front of Eddie Lopez, who immediately stated: “[T]hat‘s him, that‘s the guy who stabbed me.”
Although single photograph lineups may be suggestive and not the preferred identification procedure, we cannot conclude Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification of Chavez was unduly suggestive in the circumstances of this case. The detectives did not present Eddie Lopez with just one photograph during their interview, but showed him a number of photographs before he spontaneously described his assailant to them. Given that description, Ballardo obtained a still photograph of a man matching that description from the restaurant‘s surveillance camera video recording. The photograph did not bear any markings or titles and Ballardo did not make any statement when he placed it in front of him. Without hesitation, Eddie Lopez identified the man depicted in the photograph as his assailant. Although that identification procedure was suggestive, it was not unduly suggestive. Ballardo simply presented Eddie Lopez with a photograph from the surveillance camera video recording of a man that matched his description of his assailant and did not expressly or implicitly attempt to persuade Eddie Lopez to identify that man as his assailant.
Assuming arguendo that pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, we nevertheless conclude Eddie Lopez‘s pretrial identification of the man in the photograph (i.e., Chavez) was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Most importantly, the man wearing a red T-shirt and blue jeans depicted in the photograph was the only person shown in the surveillance camera video recording before or during the incident who was wearing that type of clothing. The only other man with a red T-shirt was wearing white shorts, not blue jeans, and had a distinctively different appearance.9
Contrary to Chavez‘s assertion, that in-court identification was not the result of, or tainted by, any unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure or unreliable pretrial identification. People v. Rodriguez (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 874, cited by Chavez, is factually inapposite to this case and does not persuade us to reach a contrary conclusion. Furthermore, neither the fact the man in the photograph appeared to be holding an object that possibly could have been a knife, nor Eddie Lopez‘s prior unfamiliarity with that man, made his pretrial identification unreliable based on the totality of the circumstances.
II
Limitation on Opinion Testimony by Chavez‘s Eyewitness Identification Expert
Chavez contends the trial court erred by improperly limiting the scope of opinion testimony by Fraser, his eyewitness identification expert.
A
Before trial, Chavez filed an in limine motion to allow him to present testimony by an eyewitness identification expert. His motion did not state the
After the prosecution completed its case-in-chief, Chavez‘s counsel presented the prosecution and the trial court with a letter from Fraser, his eyewitness identification expert, regarding the expert‘s expected testimony.10 The prosecutor described the content of that letter, stating the expert‘s expected testimony would relate to the “general topics of fight or flight, conscious transference, memory decay, and confluences.” She moved to exclude that type of testimony, arguing it potentially affected witness credibility issues. Chavez‘s counsel replied that those issues were within the broad topic of witness identifications and should be admitted.
The trial court noted that before trial the proffered eyewitness identification testimony appeared to be pertinent, but that the expert‘s letter appeared to enlarge the scope of that testimony. The prosecutor objected to the enlarged scope of the expert‘s testimony, referring to “the last couple of sentences of the first paragraph, that he be offered to testify about situations in which witnesses misperceive a harmless object to be a lethal weapon and provide an opinion about the discrepancies in Mr. Lujan‘s [sic] testimony regarding his purported knife wound and his contradictory statement at trial. I think that this is again going a little bit a foul of the jury‘s [province] and determination of a witness‘s credibility . . . .” The court agreed, stating: “I don‘t know how he‘s going to comment on anybody‘s testimony.” Chavez‘s counsel then stated that he planned to use hypotheticals. He stated that until the previous night he did not know the depth of his expert‘s knowledge. The prosecutor again stated the expert‘s expected testimony was “dangerously coming close to opining about the credibility of a specific witness, given the way that this particular letter is written.” The court indicated that an
Chavez‘s counsel stated:
“Just to clarify, the intent is for Dr. Fraser to explain that these witnesses are not untruthful, they are not fabricating
evidence, but there are certain processes in the brain that occur after witnessing a traumatic event, which he can explain . . . what the cause of the discrepancies is; that these people are not lying, they are not disingenuous, they have suffered whatever memory decay, conscious transference, misperception, post-observational influences. And these are all things that affect the memory retention after a traumatic event. And that is what he is going to testify to explain to the jury why the inconsistent stories, based on scientific research, and explain why they may happen based on hypotheticals.”
The court replied:
“Well, I wouldn‘t allow a hypothetical. I would—because—well, the most I would allow is if there are studies that—where [Fraser] can state that after a traumatic event that witnesses are not always reliable because of other factors that are going through—chemical or otherwise, through the brain, that is one thing, but to comment on specific evidence, no. To comment on somebody, even hypothetical or not to comment on what you perceive to be discrepancies, you argue that to the jury. That is what the juries are for. They are the fact finders. They find whether there are material discrepancies between witness statements. It is not up to your expert to decide whether there are discrepancies, and if there are discrepancies, why.
” . . . [I]f there‘s a foundation for the expert‘s opinion concerning the reliability of eyewitnesses of an event after a traumatic event, if there is a basis for that generally, I might allow it, but not commenting hypothetically or otherwise on specific witness‘s testimony, because the jury‘s going to decide whether there‘s discrepancies. . . . It‘s up to them to decide whether they are reliable witnesses.” (Italics added.)
The court stated that was its ruling and then asked the prosecutor whether she would like an
Chavez‘s counsel then proffered what type of hypothetical question he would pose to Fraser, stating:
“[M]y hypothetical would have just listed individual A, alleged victim; individual B, his friend; individual D, the defendant. And, basically, I would have gone through hypotheticals, which
are similar, but not identical, and not requesting that [Fraser] tell the credibility of the particular[] witness A or B, but explain what psychological brain chemistry or what psychological factors would explain for the discrepancies.”
The court ruled that it would not allow that type of expert testimony.
Chavez then presented Fraser‘s expert testimony generally on how alcohol, memory convergence, and stress could cause an eyewitness to have a faulty memory.
B
Evidence that is relevant is generally admissible at trial. (
Regarding eyewitness identifications, expert testimony may be allowed to “inform[] the jury of certain factors that may affect such an identification in a typical case.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 370 (McDonald).) “[T]o the extent that [expert testimony] may refer to the particular circumstances of the identification before the jury, such testimony is limited to explaining the potential effects of those circumstances on the powers of observation and recollection of a typical eyewitness.” (Id. at pp. 370-371.) Accordingly, a trial court may exclude expert testimony “that any
particular witness is or is not truthful or accurate in his [or her] identification of the defendant.” (Id. at p. 370.)
On appeal, we review a trial court‘s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony on psychological factors affecting eyewitness identification for abuse of discretion. (McDonald, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 377.) Nevertheless, “[e]xclusion of the expert testimony is justified only if there is other evidence that substantially corroborates the eyewitness identification and gives it independent reliability.” (People v. Jones (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1084, 1112.) Although a “defendant has the general [constitutional] right to offer a defense through the testimony of his or her witnesses [citation], . . . a state court‘s application of ordinary rules of evidence . . . generally does not infringe upon this right [citations].” (People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 82; see also Holmes v. South Carolina (2006) 547 U.S. 319, 326-327 [application of ordinary rules of evidence generally does not infringe on a defendant‘s constitutional right to present a defense].)
C
Chavez‘s contention is premised on his assumption that the trial court‘s ruling excluded any testimony by Fraser on the issues of fight or flight, conscious transference, memory decay, and confluences, and prohibited him from using hypothetical questions or discussing psychological facts that may explain discrepancies in witness statements. However, the record on appeal does not support that premise. Based on our reading of the trial court‘s ruling, quoted ante, it is clear the court excluded only expert testimony, whether directly or hypothetically, on how a traumatic event or other psychological factors affected a specific witness‘s memory or the reliability of that witness‘s identification. The court stated that it would not allow Fraser “to comment on specific evidence” or to comment on discrepancies in a specific witness‘s identification, whether by hypothetical questions or otherwise. (Italics added.) The court noted it was the jury‘s function, and not the expert‘s function, to decide whether there were discrepancies in a specific witness‘s identification or other statements. The court restated its ruling, explaining it would allow expert testimony on eyewitness identifications generally (e.g., on the effect of traumatic events generally), but would not allow Fraser to “comment[] hypothetically or otherwise on specific witness‘s testimony.” (Italics added.) Accordingly, contrary to Chavez‘s assertion, the court did not exclude general expert testimony on the issues of fight or flight, conscious transference, memory decay, and confluences, or from using general hypothetical questions to explain those concepts. Rather, the court excluded such expert testimony to the extent it commented on, whether directly or indirectly, on a specific witness‘s identification or other statements or testimony. In so doing, the court did not abuse its discretion. (Cf. People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 628 [trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony on credibility of defendant‘s expressions of remorse].) Although the court could have expressed, or elaborated on, its ruling in a more concrete or explicit manner, the gist of its ruling, as we summarized it ante, was clear from the record. Accordingly, to the extent
III
Substantial Evidence to Support Chavez‘s Conviction of Second Degree Murder
Chavez contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of the second degree murder of Crook. In particular, he argues there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he either: (1) directly aided and abetted Gonzalez‘s murder of Crook; or (2) aided and abetted an assault with a deadly weapon by Gonzalez and murder was a natural and probable consequence of that assault.
A
Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, but without the additional elements required for first degree murder (e.g., willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation). (
Under the direct aiding and abetting theory of liability for a crime, a defendant can be found guilty of that crime if he or she knows of the perpetrator‘s unlawful purpose and specifically intends to, and does in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator‘s commission of that crime. (CALCRIM No. 401; People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117.)
Under the
“Before you decide whether the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree, you must decide whether he is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury other than the crime charged in Count 2.
“To prove that the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree, the People must prove that:
“1. The defendant is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury other than the crime charged in Count 2;
“2. During the commission of assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, a coparticipant in that assault committed the crime of murder;
“AND
“3. Under all of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant‘s position would have known that the commission of the murder was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of the assault.
“A coparticipant in a crime is the perpetrator or anyone who aided and abetted the perpetrator. It does not include a victim or innocent bystander.
“A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence. If the murder was committed for a reason independent of the common plan to commit the assault, then the commission of murder was not a natural and probable consequence of assault.
“To decide whether [the] crime of murder in the second degree was committed, please refer to the separate instructions that I have given you on that crime.
“The People are alleging that the defendant originally intended to aid and abet an assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. “If you decide that the defendant aided and abetted one of these crimes and that murder in the second degree was a natural and probable consequence of that crime, the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. You do not need to agree about which of these crimes the defendant aided and abetted.”
“The natural and probable consequences doctrine is based on the recognition that those who aid and abet [a crime] should be responsible for the harm they have naturally, probably, and foreseeably put in motion.” (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 567.) Under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, an aider and abettor need not have actually foreseen the nontarget crime; rather, the question is whether, viewed objectively, that the nontarget crime was reasonably foreseeable (i.e., whether a reasonable person in the defendant‘s position would have, or should have, known the nontarget crime was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the target crime he or she aided and abetted). (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 920 (Medina); People v. Mendoza (1988) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1133 (Mendoza); People v. Nguyen (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 518, 535 (Nguyen).) To be reasonably foreseeable, the consequence need not have been a strong probability; rather, a possible consequence that might reasonably have been contemplated is sufficient. (Medina, at p. 920; Nguyen, at p. 535.) “A reasonably foreseeable consequence is to be evaluated under all the factual circumstances of the individual case [citation] and is a factual issue to be resolved by the jury.” (Medina, at p. 920.)
B
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review. Generally, our task “is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11, citing People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) “Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 (Young).) Accordingly, on appeal we do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in
The substantial evidence standard of review involves two steps. “First, one must resolve all explicit conflicts in the evidence in favor of the respondent and presume in favor of the judgment all reasonable inferences. [Citation.] Second, one must determine whether the evidence thus marshaled is substantial. While it is commonly stated that our ‘power’ begins and ends with a determination that there is substantial evidence [citation], this does not mean we must blindly seize any evidence in support of the respondent in order to affirm the judgment. . . . [Citation.] ‘[I]f the word “substantial” [is to mean] anything at all, it clearly implies that such evidence must be of ponderable legal significance. Obviously the word cannot be deemed synonymous with “any” evidence. It must be reasonable . . . , credible, and of solid value . . . .’ [Citation.] The ultimate determination is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found for the respondent based on the whole record.” (Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1632-1633, fns. omitted.) The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 932.)
C
Based on our review of the record, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support a finding that Chavez is guilty of the second degree murder of Crook based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. First, there is substantial evidence to support a finding that Chavez aided and abetted Gonzalez‘s assault with a deadly weapon or assault likely to cause great bodily injury. As the physical altercation began between members of the National City and Tijuana groups, the surveillance camera video recording shows Chavez holding an object in his hand. Based on Eddie Lopez‘s testimony that Chavez later chased him with a knife, the jury could reasonably infer the object in Chavez‘s hand was a knife. During the fight, Gonzalez and Chavez are seen back-to-back and then face-to-face near the flatbed truck. Gonzalez and Chavez are then seen pacing back and forth next to the truck. Lujan, who was under the truck at the time, testified he saw Gonzalez holding a gun at his side while pacing back and forth. The jury could reasonably infer that Chavez saw Gonzalez‘s gun while pacing back and forth with him. As the initial physical altercation ended and members of the groups headed southward from the restaurant, Eddie Lopez chased the Gutierrez brothers holding a beer bottle in his hand. Gonzalez and Chavez also headed in that direction. Gonzalez pointed his gun at Eddie Lopez‘s back, while Chavez chased him (Eddie Lopez) holding a knife. Based on that evidence, the jury could reasonably infer Gonzalez and Chavez were acting
Second, there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the murder of Crook was a natural and probable consequence of the assault on Eddie Lopez that Chavez aided and abetted. The jury could infer that a reasonable person in Chavez‘s position should have, or would have, known that murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the assault by Gonzalez that Chavez aided and abetted. (Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 920; Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1133; Nguyen, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 535.) Alternatively stated, when Gonzalez assaulted Eddie Lopez by pointing his gun directly at his back, a reasonable person in Chavez‘s position, while aiding and abetting that assault, would have known murder was a natural and probable consequence of that assault. (CALCRIM No. 403.) Chavez need not have actually foreseen the nontarget crime of murder because, viewed objectively, murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the assault on Eddie Lopez. (Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 920; Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1133; Nguyen, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 535.) To be reasonably foreseeable, the consequence need not have been a strong probability; rather, a possible consequence that might reasonably have been contemplated is sufficient. (Medina, at p. 920; Nguyen, at p. 535.)
Accordingly, a reasonable jury could conclude that when Chavez determined to assist Gonzalez in assaulting Eddie Lopez, knowing that Gonzalez was armed with a gun, it was reasonably foreseeable that someone might be shot and killed. The fact that it was Crook, and not Eddie Lopez, who Gonzalez ultimately shot and killed does not preclude application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine. That Lopez‘s death was particularly foreseeable does not change the fact that death to other potential victims—participants in the brawl (like Crook) or innocent bystanders—was likewise foreseeable when Chavez and Gonzalez escalated an already charged situation by drawing deadly weapons. (Cf. People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 619-620 [substantial evidence
To the extent Chavez argues the natural and probable consequences doctrine applies only in gang-related cases, he is mistaken. Although that doctrine has often been applied in gang-related cases, it can be applied in nongang cases, such as the instant case if all of the elements for its application are proved. Here, there is substantial evidence to support all of the elements for application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine to find Chavez guilty of the second degree murder of Crook. None of the cases cited by Chavez are factually apposite to this case or otherwise persuade us to reach a contrary conclusion.14 (See, e.g., Juan H. v. Allen (9th Cir. 2005) 408 F.3d 1262; United States v. Andrews (9th Cir. 1996) 75 F.3d 552.)
IV
CALCRIM No. 571
Chavez contends the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 571 on imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another but omitting imperfect defense of Gonzalez.
A
The trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 571 on imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another, stating:
“A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because he acted in imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another. “If you conclude the defendant acted in complete self-defense or defense of another, his action was lawful and you must find him not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete self-defense or defense of another and imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another depends on whether the defendant‘s belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable.
“The defendant acted in imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another if:
“1. The defendant actually believed that he or Vincente Roldan was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury;
“AND
“2. The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;
“BUT
“3. At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.
“Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be;
“In evaluating the defendant‘s beliefs, consider all the circumstances as they were known and appeared to the defendant.
“Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.
“The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder.” (Italics added.)
B
“[E]ven in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected
For a killing to be perfect self-defense and exonerate the defendant completely as a justifiable homicide, “the defendant must actually and reasonably believe in the need to defend.” (People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082.) However, “[i]f the belief subjectively exists but is objectively unreasonable, there is ‘imperfect self-defense,’ i.e., ‘the defendant is deemed to have acted without malice and cannot be convicted of murder,’ but can be convicted of manslaughter. [Citation.].” (Ibid., fn. omitted.) For either perfect or imperfect self-defense, the fear must be of imminent danger to life or great bodily injury. (Ibid.) “[A] defendant who, with the intent to kill or with conscious disregard for life, unlawfully kills in unreasonable self-defense is guilty of voluntary manslaughter.” (People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 91.) “Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense, when the trier of fact finds that a defendant killed another person because the defendant actually but unreasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, the defendant is deemed to have acted without malice and thus can be convicted of no crime greater than voluntary manslaughter.” (In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771.)
Like imperfect self-defense, “one who kills in imperfect defense of others—in the actual but unreasonable belief he must defend another from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury—is guilty only of manslaughter.” (People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 997 (Randle); see People v. Trujeque (2015) 61 Cal.4th 227, 270-271 (Trujeque).) For imperfect defense of another to apply, the defendant must, inter alia, actually believe the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend another person against the danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury. (CALCRIM No. 571.) Furthermore, for imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another to apply, the defendant must actually associate the threat of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury with the victim. (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1068-1069 (Minifie).)
C
Chavez apparently argues there is evidence to support a finding that he actually believed Crook was holding a glass goblet or other glass object that could be used as a deadly weapon and that when Crook approached Gonzalez from behind, he (Gonzalez) was in imminent danger of being struck by that weapon and being killed or suffering great bodily injury. However, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the object Crook was possibly holding at the time he tapped Gonzalez on the shoulder was, or appeared to be, a glass goblet or other glass object. Rather, the evidence supports, at most, a finding Crook was holding a plastic cup at the time he tapped Gonzalez on the shoulder from behind. The surveillance camera video recording, and still photographs taken therefrom, show Crook leaving the restaurant, placing a drink container on the flatbed truck, pushing past Juan Carlos Lopez, and then picking the container back up and heading southward out of the camera‘s view. Crook and Lujan approached Gonzalez, who was pointing his gun at Eddie Lopez‘s back, from behind and Crook tapped him (Gonzalez) on the shoulder. Gonzalez spun around and shot Crook twice at point-blank range, striking him in the chest near his armpit and in the upper right side of his back.
Our independent review of the video recording and still photographs therefrom confirms that the object that Crook placed on the flatbed truck and later picked up before heading southward could not reasonably be believed to be one of the restaurant‘s shrimp cocktail glasses. Its sides are straight, slightly angling inward from top to bottom (i.e., a slight cone shape with a flat bottom). Its shape is entirely inconsistent with the shape of the restaurant‘s shrimp cocktail glass, as described by Juan Carlos Lopez, which we interpret, for lack of a better description, as having a top-heavy hourglass shape (i.e., curving or undulating sides) with a narrow stem in the middle. The object held by Crook appears to be frosted and contains a dark liquid. Juan Carlos Lopez testified that it was plastic (i.e., not glass), describing it as a plastic michelada cup, which looks completely different from a shrimp cocktail glass.
Based on all of the evidence in the record, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Crook was, or appeared to be, holding a heavy, three-pound shrimp cocktail glass when he approached Gonzalez from behind and tapped him on the shoulder. Accordingly, there likewise is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Chavez saw Crook approach Gonzalez from behind with such a heavy glass object and actually believed Gonzalez was in imminent danger of being struck by that glass object and being killed or suffering great bodily injury. Absent substantial evidence to support that finding, the trial court did not err by not modifying CALCRIM No. 571 to include Chavez‘s defense of Gonzalez in its instruction on imperfect defense of another. (Montoya, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1047; Randle, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 997; Trujeque, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 270-271; Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 1068-1069.)
V
CALCRIM No. 3471
Gonzalez contends the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 3471 on self-defense, but without its optional bracketed language stating that an aggressor who initially uses only nondeadly force regains the right to self-defense when his or her opponent counters with deadly force.
A
The trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 3471 on the right to self-defense in circumstances of mutual combat or where the defendant was the initial aggressor, stating:
“A person who engages in mutual combat or who starts a fight has a right to self-defense only if:
“1. He actually and in good faith tried to stop fighting;
“AND
“2. He indicated, by word or by conduct, to his opponent, in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that he wanted to stop fighting and that he had stopped fighting;
“AND
“3. He gave his opponent a chance to stop fighting.
“If the defendant meets these requirements, he then had a right to self-defense if the opponent continued to fight.
“A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent or agreement. That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and must occur before the claim to self-defense arose.”
In so instructing, the court omitted optional bracketed language from CALCRIM No. 3471, which states:
“However, if the defendant used only nondeadly force, and the opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that the defendant could not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had the right to defend (himself/herself) with deadly force and was not
required to try to stop fighting(,/ or) communicate the desire to stop the opponent[, or give the opponent a chance to stop fighting].”
B
As discussed ante, “even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and that are necessary for the jury‘s understanding of the case. [Citations.] The trial court is charged with instructing upon every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant‘s theory of the case. [Citations.]” (Montoya, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1047.) Evidence is substantial only if a reasonable jury could find it persuasive. (Young, supra, (2005) 34 Cal.4th at p. 1200.)
C
Gonzalez argues the trial court should have included the bracketed language, quoted ante, when instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 (i.e., if the jury found he initially used only nondeadly force and Crook responded with sudden and deadly force such that he could not withdraw from the fight, then he (Gonzalez) regained the right to defend himself with deadly force, whether in perfect or imperfect self-defense). However, contrary to Gonzalez‘s assertion, substantial evidence did not support the bracketed language the court omitted from CALCRIM No. 3471. The main premise of Gonzalez‘s argument is that there is substantial evidence to support a finding that Crook used, or appeared to use, deadly force (i.e., a heavy glass object) against him, but the only substantial evidence of a heavy glass object was regarding the beer bottle thrown by Eddie Lopez at the Gutierrez brothers. That bottle was not thrown at or toward Gonzalez, but was instead thrown in the opposite direction by Eddie Lopez, and Gonzalez was not charged with the murder of Eddie Lopez.
Nevertheless, Gonzalez argues there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the object possibly held by Crook when he (Crook) tapped him on the shoulder was, in fact, a heavy glass object. However, as we discussed in part IV(C) ante and which discussion we incorporate herein, the evidence admitted at trial (including the video recording and still photographs from the surveillance camera and Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony) does not support a finding that Crook picked up a glass object off of the flatbed truck before heading toward Gonzalez. Instead, he, at most, picked up a plastic michelada cup before heading toward Gonzalez.
At trial, Juan Carlos Lopez, as discussed in section IV(C) ante, described the restaurant‘s plastic michelada cups and its glass shrimp cocktail cups and
We likewise reject Gonzalez‘s alternative argument that there is substantial evidence to support a finding the object possibly held by Crook, if not a shrimp cocktail glass, was instead a beer glass with a “waist” in its middle or other similarly shaped goblet or container made of glass and not a plastic michelada cup with straight sides. The evidence discussed ante is inconsistent with such a finding and instead supports a finding only that the object was a plastic michelada cup, which could not have posed to Gonzalez any real or perceived threat of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Gonzalez merely speculates that Crook may have been holding a heavy object made of glass when he approached Gonzalez from behind.16 His suggested interpretation of the object on the flatbed truck shown in the video recording and still photographs from the surveillance camera is not supported by our independent viewing of that evidence.
Accordingly, based on our review of the record and relevant evidence, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Crook was holding, or appeared to be holding, a heavy shrimp cocktail glass, glass goblet, or other object that appeared to be made of glass when he approached Gonzalez from behind and tapped him on the shoulder. Absent substantial evidence supporting such a finding, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding Gonzalez actually believed Crook posed an imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to him or others that would justify Gonzalez‘s use of perfect or imperfect self-defense by shooting Crook. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err by omitting the bracketed language from CALCRIM No. 3471, which would have allowed the jury to find Gonzalez regained his right to defend himself if, inter alia, it found Crook used, or appeared to use, deadly force against him. (Montoya, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1047.)
CALCRIM No. 3472
Gonzalez contends the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 3472 but not modifying it with language stating that a person who provokes a fight with an intent to use nondeadly force regains the right to self-defense when his or her opponent counters with deadly force.
A
Per the prosecution‘s request, the trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 3472, without modification, as follows: “A person does not have the right to self-defense if he provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use force.” Gonzalez did not object to that instruction.
B
As discussed ante, “even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law that are commonly or closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and that are necessary for the jury‘s understanding of the case. [Citations.] The trial court is charged with instructing upon every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant‘s theory of the case. [Citations.]” (Montoya, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1047.) Evidence is substantial only if a reasonable jury could find it persuasive. (Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1200.)
C
Gonzalez argues the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 3472, as quoted ante, without modifying it to include language permitting him to use perfect or imperfect self-defense if he initially used nondeadly force and Crook responded with deadly force. Alternatively stated, he argues the court should have modified CALCRIM No. 3472 to state those defenses are not available if he provoked the fight and created the circumstances that legally justified Crook‘s use of force. (Cf. People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 761; People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 947-952; People v. Frandsen (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 266, 272; People v. Vasquez (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1179-1180.)
However, as with CALCRIM No. 3471 discussed ante, we conclude the trial court did not err by omitting language modifying CALCRIM No. 3472
VII
Admission of Evidence on Gonzalez‘s Death Threat and Denial of His Motion for Mistrial
Gonzalez contends the trial court abused its discretion under
A
In the course of discussing the parties’ pretrial in limine motions, Gonzalez‘s counsel raised the issue of a report disclosed by the prosecution regarding its investigator‘s interview of Julio Martinez in which he (Martinez) stated that
“[W]hat happened is [Martinez] was in custody with Mr. Gonzalez April 16th or 20th[, 2015], the last time we were here. . . .
“And what [Martinez] says is he and Mr. Gonzalez were chitchatting and it came about that they realized they both knew Juan Carlos Lopez.
“At that time, Mr. Gonzalez told [Martinez] that could he get in touch with Mr. Lopez and basically tell him not to come to court, that he knew where he lived and where his children went to school and so forth, and then reiterated that he better not come to court and testify. He also referenced that Mr. Lopez had already testified at [his] preliminary hearing.
“[Martinez] got out of custody within about 48 hours of that conversation and immediately contacted Mr. Lopez and Mr. Lopez‘s cousin, who he is married to. And Mr. Lopez received a couple of text messages. Mr. Lopez called [Martinez] back and [Martinez] relayed the conversation he had with Mr. Gonzalez.”
The trial court tentatively ruled Martinez could testify, subject to a further objection.
In her direct examination of Juan Carlos Lopez, the prosecutor asked him whether he was nervous about testifying. He replied, “Yes.” She asked him whether he had discomfort with talking to police and coming to court to testify regarding the incident. He replied, “Yes.” When she asked why he had such discomfort, Gonzalez‘s counsel objected on grounds of relevancy.
At a sidebar conference outside of the jury‘s presence, Gonzalez‘s counsel stated he did not know “exactly what [Juan Carlos Lopez] is going to say. There were a lot of threats going back and forth . . . . He could say something so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that would result in a mistrial.” The prosecutor made an offer of proof regarding how Juan Carlos Lopez was expected to testify, stating: “[He] feels discomfort from both sides. He‘s expressed to police, I think in prior statements and certainly to me, that he feels pressure from the neighborhood, because everybody feels like since he‘s the person that knows everybody that he should be the one to provide information on the one hand. On the other hand,
The trial court stated:
“I don‘t know how to do [
an Evidence Code section] 402 [hearing] on a witness. . . . I think it all comes in. . . . [I]t is my understanding that Mr. Gonzalez didn‘t directly talk to him, and so if he felt pressure, it wasn‘t directly from Mr. Gonzalez. . . . [R]ight now it is not like he is going to say he heard it from Mr. Gonzalez.”
The prosecutor stated that Juan Carlos Lopez had expressed fear of Gonzalez as a result of the threat that Martinez told him about. She stated: “His boy, oldest boy goes to school with Mr. Gonzalez‘[s] eldest daughter, and unbeknownst to him they are very good friends . . . .” Both Gonzalez‘s counsel and Chavez‘s counsel submitted on the matter, stating they needed to cross-examine Juan Carlos Lopez to show he was pressured to come up with a story. The court implicitly ruled the prosecutor could question Juan Carlos Lopez on the specifics of his discomfort in testifying.
In the presence of the jury, the prosecutor continued her questioning of Juan Carlo Lopez as follows:
“Q. Mr. Lopez, we were talking a bit about your discomfort in testifying. . . . Would you prefer not to testify here in court today?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And is it fair to say you‘re here because we subpoenaed you?
“A. Correct.
“Q. Why would you prefer not to testify?
“A. Most recently, the death threats.
“Q. Do you fear for your safety?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And that of your family?
“A. More my family than mine.
“Q. And you said, ‘most recently.’ At the beginning or onset of this case, did you have different concerns?
“A. Similar. I felt like it was coming—I don‘t know where it was coming from. “Q. Fears for your safety?
“A. Correct.
“Q. Did you feel pressure from the neighborhood?
“A. Yes.
“Q. You mentioned there was a recent threat; is that right?
“A. Correct.
“Q. And was it a threat in regards to testifying?
“A. Yes. [¶] . . . [¶]
“Q. Did you receive a message urging you not to testify?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Who gave you that message?
“A. A gentleman by the name of Julio.
“Q. And how do you know Julio?
“A. I‘ve known him for quite some time. He‘s related to my brother‘s wife. [¶] . . . [¶]
“Q. Did he tell you the content of that threat?
“A. Yes.
“Q. What did he tell you?
“[Gonzalez‘s counsel:] Objection, your honor. I call[s] for hearsay.
“THE COURT: And, ladies and gentlemen, I‘m going to allow this information in . . . for a limited purpose. It is not for the truth of really what
was said. It is for the impact on the person that heard it. Whether the words were true or not, this is just for how Mr. Lopez reacted. [¶] So go ahead. [¶] . . . [¶] “Q [by the prosecutor]. What did he tell you?
“A. He told me that he had recently got a DUI and he was incarcerated. And while incarcerated he was . . . housed or in the same cell as Mr. Gonzalez. And Mr. Gonzalez somehow through their conversation came up why one or the other was inside or incarcerated, and it came out that Julio knew me. And [Gonzalez] said, do me a favor. When you get out, make sure you tell him not to testify or I‘m going to kill his family and him.
“Q. What effect did this have on you?
“A. On me, personally, I have to use whatever resources I have to protect my family. [¶] On my family, it‘s taken a toll.
“Q. Has it caused worry and concern for you?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And worry and concern for you specifically about testifying?
“A. Correct.”
The prosecutor then questioned Juan Carlos Lopez about the restaurant‘s surveillance camera and the instant incident.
During a recess in the jury‘s absence, the trial court discussed with counsel Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony and stated: “I have to say that . . . I shouldn‘t have been surprised by the detail with which Mr. Lopez gave the conversation he had with his friend, but part of my ruling, besides what we already have on the record, was in anticipation that the person who actually made the call that was in the cell [i.e., Martinez] was going to come in and testify in detail, which is I think we had a conversation before [the] trial started, so that [Gonzalez‘s counsel] would have an opportunity to cross-examine him on any conversation with Mr. Gonzalez.” Gonzalez‘s counsel stated:
“I never imagined for a second that a hearsay statement of that nature, which can‘t be sanitized under any circumstances, because the prejudicial effect is so overwhelming, the probative value can certainly be minimized by the fact that he could say he got a threat not to testify and then, of course, [Martinez] can come in and talk about it and perhaps lay a better foundation. But . . . it has such an explosive and prejudicial value to my client. It is clearly a hearsay
statement. There are other methods by which he could indicate what his state of mind was, but not something as explosive as that.”
Based on those concerns, Gonzalez‘s counsel moved for a mistrial. The court took the motion under submission and suggested that Gonzalez‘s counsel could file a written motion.
Gonzalez‘s counsel subsequently filed a written motion for mistrial, arguing Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony regarding Gonzalez‘s death threat was inadmissible hearsay and, in particular, should not have been admitted as relevant to Juan Carlos Lopez‘s then-existing state of mind. He also argued the trial court abused its discretion under
The prosecutor opposed the mistrial motion, arguing Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony (and Martinez‘s follow-up testimony) was highly relevant to his credibility because of his inconsistent statements about the incident and the shooter‘s identity, his initial denial that the video recording existed, his possible edits to that recording, and his change in demeanor when asked on direct examination who the shooter was.
The trial court denied Gonzalez‘s motion for mistrial, stating that Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony was relevant to his credibility and to explain his “strong physical reaction” when on direct examination he identified Gonzalez as the shooter. The court acknowledged that when Juan Carlos Lopez testified about the details of Gonzalez‘s threat, the court was not anticipating that testimony but nevertheless knew about that threat because it was discussed before trial. The court referred to its admonition or limiting instruction and also stated Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony about Gonzalez‘s threat was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial because Martinez was expected to testify regarding that threat anyway.
The prosecution subsequently presented testimony by Martinez regarding the details of the death threat that Gonzalez asked him to, and he (Martinez) did, convey to Juan Carlos Lopez. In particular, Martinez testified that while they were in custody together, Gonzalez asked him to relay a message to Juan Carlos Lopez to not show up in court and that he (Juan Carlos Lopez) was being a “snitch.” Gonzalez told Martinez he knew Juan Carlos Lopez‘s family, knew where they lived, and where Juan Carlos Lopez‘s children went to high school, specifying it by name. Gonzalez stated he “didn‘t want to kill them,” so Juan Carlos Lopez should not come to court. Martinez later conveyed Gonzalez‘s threat to Juan Carlos Lopez.
Gonzalez asserts the trial court abused its discretion under
On appeal, we apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court‘s ruling on the admissibility of evidence, including an
Based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion under
Contrary to Gonzalez‘s assertion, there is no affirmative evidence in the record showing the court was either unaware of its discretion under
Second, we reject Gonzalez‘s assertion that the trial court abused its
The court could also have found any prejudice from that expected testimony would not be undue because the prosecutor planned to present similar testimony by Martinez regarding Gonzalez‘s threat, as discussed before trial. Contrary to Gonzalez‘s assertion, the expected testimony by Martinez regarding the threat did not necessarily make Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony regarding that threat unduly cumulative such that the court abused its discretion by admitting it. In particular, Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony was
Furthermore, the trial court could have concluded any prejudice from the admission of Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony regarding Gonzalez‘s threat could be minimized by a limiting instruction or admonition. Weighing the highly probative value of the expected testimony of Juan Carlos Lopez regarding Gonzalez‘s threat against its potential prejudicial effect, the court could reasonably conclude that expected testimony was not unduly prejudicial under
Assuming arguendo the trial court abused its discretion under
Furthermore, as anticipated, Martinez subsequently testified, without objection by Gonzalez, regarding Gonzalez‘s threat against Juan Carlos Lopez and
C
Gonzalez also asserts the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial based on the court‘s purported abuse of discretion in admitting Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony regarding his (Gonzalez‘s) threat. “A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854.) “A motion for a mistrial should be granted when ’ ” ‘a [defendant‘s] chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 198-199 (Collins).) On appeal, we apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court‘s denial of a motion for mistrial. (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 553 (Davis); People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953.)
In denying Gonzalez‘s motion for a mistrial, the trial court concluded Juan Carlos Lopez‘s testimony regarding Gonzalez‘s threat was relevant to his credibility and was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial because Martinez was expected to testify regarding that threat anyway and it gave an admonition or limiting instruction. Based on our review of the record, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez‘s motion for mistrial. (Davis, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 553; Cox, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 953.) As we discussed ante, the court did not abuse its discretion
VIII
Alternative Contentions
Gonzalez alternatively contends that if his counsel did not adequately request the trial court to exercise its
favorable verdict had his counsel not made those errors). (Strickland, at pp. 687-694.) Accordingly, we reject Gonzalez‘s alternative contentions.19
IX
Senate Bill No. 620 Retroactivity
Gonzalez contends 2017 Senate Bill No. 620, which amended
After the parties filed their briefs and oral argument was set in this matter, Gonzalez filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief on the issue of whether newly enacted Senate Bill No. 620 should be applied retroactively to his nonfinal judgment. We granted that motion and accepted for filing his supplemental brief that argued Senate Bill No. 620 should be applied retroactively to nonfinal judgments, including the judgment in his case, and the matter should be remanded for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the
B
At the time of Gonzalez‘s murder offense, conviction, and sentencing, the former version of
In Estrada, the California Supreme Court held that a statute that reduces the punishment for an offense will generally apply retroactively to any case in which the judgment is not yet final before the effective date of the statute. (Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 742, 744-745.) Estrada stated: “When the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen the punishment it has obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe and that a lighter punishment is proper as punishment for the commission of the prohibited act. It is an inevitable inference that the Legislature must have intended that the new statute imposing the new lighter penalty now deemed to be sufficient should apply to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The amendatory act imposing the lighter punishment can be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting the defendant of the act is not final.” (Id. at p. 745.) Although
In Francis, the California Supreme Court extended the Estrada rule to a statute that modified the punishment for possession of marijuana, which formerly had been strictly a felony offense, to permit a trial court to treat that offense as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. (Francis, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 75-76.) Francis concluded that the amended statute giving the trial court discretion to impose either a felony sentence or a misdemeanor sentence applied retroactively “because the Legislature has determined that the former penalty provisions may have been too severe in some cases and that the sentencing judge should be given wider latitude in tailoring the sentence to fit the particular circumstances.” (Id. at p. 76.)
The court recently described its Estrada rule, stating: “The Estrada rule rests on an inference that, in the absence of contrary indications, a legislative
In its amicus brief, the San Diego County District Attorney argues that the California Supreme Court‘s decision in People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown) narrowed the holdings in Estrada and Francis and precluded retroactive application of amended
However, in People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara), the California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its reasoning in Estrada and Francis in holding that Proposition 57, which reduced the possible punishment for juveniles, applies retroactively to punishment of juvenile defendants whose judgments are not yet final. (Lara, at pp. 303, 307-309.) “Proposition 57 prohibits prosecutors from charging juveniles with crimes directly in adult court. Instead, they must commence the action in juvenile court. If the prosecution wishes to try the juvenile as an adult, the juvenile court must conduct what we call a ‘transfer hearing’ to determine whether the matter should remain in juvenile court or be transferred to adult court. Only if the juvenile court transfers the matter to adult court can the juvenile be tried and sentenced as an adult. (
“Proposition 57‘s
effect is different from the statutory changes in Estrada . . . and Francis . . . . Proposition 57 did not ameliorate the punishment, or possible punishment, for a particular crime; rather, it ameliorated the possible punishment for a class of persons, namely juveniles. But the same inference of retroactivity should apply.” (Id. at p. 308.)
The court explained: “Proposition 57 is an ‘ameliorative change[] to the criminal law’ that we infer the legislative body intended ‘to extend as broadly as possible.’ [Citation.] Nothing in Proposition 57 itself or the ballot materials rebuts this inference.” (Id. at p. 309.) The court distinguished its case from the circumstances in Brown, which addressed an amended statute affecting only good behavior credits in a custodial setting. (Id. at p. 311.) Proposition 57 does not address future conduct or provide incentives for good behavior, but instead may affect a juvenile‘s effective sentence or juvenile disposition for past criminal conduct. (Ibid.) The court noted that it stated in Brown that Estrada is properly understood ” ‘as informing the rule‘s [
Based on the California Supreme Court‘s reaffirmance in Lara of its reasoning in Estrada and Francis, we conclude, contrary to the San Diego County District Attorney‘s position, that the reasoning and holdings in those cases remain valid today and were not restricted or overruled by Brown. In
Applying the reasoning and holdings in Estrada and Francis to the instant statute amended by Senate Bill No. 620 in this case (i.e.,
C
Notwithstanding our conclusion ante that
At Gonzalez‘s sentencing, the trial court expressed its concern regarding his criminal history, his “senseless” shooting of Crook, and his use of a gun while he (Gonzalez) was out on bail on a previous gun charge. The court stated:
“I have gone through . . . the probation report and considered the factors in aggravation and mitigation. And, unfortunately, there really were no factors in mitigation in this crime. You have a lengthy criminal history. You obviously have been in front of me and been very polite and never caused any trouble in court, but looking back at your criminal history, it‘s lengthy. There [are] preprison sentences, multiple convictions for domestic violence. And I‘m struck by the fact you are out on bail for a gun charge and when you are out on bail you arm yourself, and here we are today with the senseless murder of Mr. Crook. I take that all into consideration when determining whether it‘s appropriate to consider concurrent sentences for some of these, as opposed to consecutive [sentences]. [W]ith no factors in mitigation and the loss of Mr. Crook, I don‘t find any reason to run any of the [sentences for the] crimes concurrently.”
Accordingly, the court imposed a term of 15 years to life for count 1, with a consecutive enhancement of 25 years to life under
Based on the trial court‘s comments at Gonzalez‘s sentencing, we conclude, as the People argue, that the record clearly shows the court would not exercise its new discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 to strike or dismiss the
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed. The superior court is directed to issue a new minute order nunc pro tunc reflecting its imposition of a consecutive two-year term for Gonzalez‘s conviction on count 2. The superior court clerk is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the imposition of a consecutive two-year term for Gonzalez‘s conviction on count 2 and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NARES, J.
I CONCUR:
DATO, J.
BENKE, J., Concurring and dissenting.
I concur with my colleagues on the issue of retroactivity of Penal Code1
Relying on In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 (Brown), and recent case law,2 my colleagues conclude
There is no such presumption, either in the Penal Code or in the governing law provided to us by the Supreme Court. Indeed, with respect to penal statutes, even those reducing in general the punishment for crimes, our analysis must begin with the contrary presumption.
The California Supreme Court recently addressed the application of Estrada. As the court explains in Lara, “We have occasionally referred to Estrada as reflecting a ‘presumption.’ (E.g., [People v.] Conley [(2016)] 63 Cal.4th [646] at p. 656; [Brown, supra,] 54 Cal.4th . . . [at p.] 324.) We meant this to convey that ordinarily it is reasonable to infer for purposes of statutory construction the Legislature intended a reduction in punishment to apply retroactively.” (Lara, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 308, fn. 5; see People v. DeHoyos (Mar. 12, 2018, S228230) __Cal.5th__ [2018 Cal. Lexis 1496].)
The language of footnote 5 in Lara is significant and merits our careful consideration. “A presumption is an assumption of a fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in an
At this point, especially in light of Lara, I do not think it is appropriate to restrict our analysis to application of a presumption that ameliorative changes in penal statutes must be applied retroactively. Rather, when, as here, a criminal defendant argues he or she is entitled to the benefit of new legislation, we must begin with the contrary presumption, expressly set forth in
Turning to Senate Bill No. 620 (SB 620), I note the discretion
The discretion which the Legislature provided trial courts is not the only indication the Legislature intended retrospective application of SB 620.
In sum, it is not necessary or legally sound to employ a presumption that is at odds with
Finally, I part company with my colleagues on the question of whether this case should be remanded. I believe it should. Given the multiple offenses at issue here, and the discretion available, I would give the trial court the opportunity to exercise that discretion with respect to defendant‘s firearm enhancement.
BENKE, Acting P. J.