People v. GonzalezPeople v. Gonzalez
A jury found defendant Frank Christopher Gonzalez guilty of first degree murder and attempted second degree robbery. (See
I. BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase
1. The shooting and initial investigation
At around 6:00 a.m. on March 28, 2006, Genaro Huizar arrived at his home on Eucalyptus Avenue in Long Beach. After parking his car, he observed two men on bicycles ride past him. One of the bicycles looked like a “10-speed“; the other bike was smaller. Huizar continued walking and entered his home. Moments later he heard between three and five gunshots.
Officer Rosa lived in a house on Eucalyptus Avenue with her partner, Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Department Detective Jenny Martin, and Martin‘s nephew. On the morning of the shooting, Martin was awakened by her nephew, who told her Rosa was “on the floor outside.” Martin saw Rosa lying on the ground outside the house and called 911.
Long Beach Police Department Officer Robert Davenport responded to the 911 calls. When Davenport arrived at the scene he saw a red BMX-style bicycle near Rosa‘s body, which appeared to have a gunshot wound. The body was lying in a driveway near a car with its trunk open. Davenport looked inside the trunk and saw several items including a gun, boots and a purse. The purse was partially open.
Long Beach Police Department Detectives Patrick O‘Dowd and Bryan McMahon inspected the trunk, which contained a black gym bag with a nine-millimeter Heckler and Koch handgun next to it, along with a purse and a wallet. The keys to the car were in the keyhole of the trunk. They also found Rosa‘s police badge, which was closed, and a firearm holster. Detective McMahon testified that the gun had a live round jammed into it that obstructed the chamber. He believed that the gun was jammed due to someone having tried to get a round into the chamber. Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Department
Los Angeles County Medical Examiner Paul Gliniecki conducted an autopsy the day after the murder. He identified two gunshot wounds, one to Rosa‘s upper right shoulder and a fatal wound to her left side abdomen. Both bullets were .22-caliber munitions. Gliniecki concluded that Rosa had died from internal bleeding caused by the gunshots.
Long Beach Police Department Detective David Rios secured surveillance video from a Bank of America located near the shooting and reviewed footage that had been captured between 4:00 and 7:00 a.m. on the day of the murder. The video showed two men riding on bicycles between 5:25 and 5:30 a.m. Rios generated still images of the two men, which he turned over to investigating officers. Detective O‘Dowd used the images in a flier offering a reward for information about the suspects.
2. The DNA evidence
Kari Yoshida, a criminalist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Department, was able to generate a DNA profile from samples obtained from the handlebar of the bicycle found at the scene of the crime. The profile was entered into the “Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a nationwide database that enables law enforcement to search DNA profiles collected from federal, state, and local collection programs.” (People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 666.)
In July of 2006, the California Department of Justice informed personnel investigating Rosa‘s murder that Gonzalez was a potential match. Yoshida‘s colleague, Juli Watkins, obtained reference samples from Gonzalez and generated a DNA profile. She then compared his profile to the profile Yoshida had
At trial, Watkins testified about her and Yoshida‘s DNA analysis. She further testified that Gonzalez could not be ruled out as a possible contributor to the sample found on the bike. Using a conservative estimate, she testified there was a one in one billion chance that a random person would share the same DNA typing with the sample found on the handlebar.
3. Undercover operation targeting Gonzalez and Justin Flint
Based on the DNA evidence and information obtained by confidential informants, law enforcement personnel began to focus their investigation on Gonzalez and a man named Justin Flint. Detective O‘Dowd aided the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Department in conducting an undercover operation involving the two suspects, who were both incarcerated on charges unrelated to Rosa‘s shooting. As part of the operation, a bus outfitted with recording devices picked up Gonzalez and Flint at their respective prisons along with two groups of undercover officers posing as inmates, and then transported them to the Los Angeles County jail. Once the bus arrived at the county jail, Gonzalez and Flint were initially placed in separate cells that were also outfitted with recording devices. Undercover officers rotated in and out of each cell to create the impression that they were being processed. Eventually, Gonzalez and Flint were placed in the same cell.
An undercover agent that participated in the operation testified that when Gonzalez entered the bus and saw Flint, he became “excited in a bad way” and “almost lost control of his emotions.” Another agent who was on the bus heard Gonzalez
Detective Javier Clift initiated a conversation with Gonzalez and suggested that he must have been detained because evidence was left at the crime scene. Gonzalez responded, “No, I cleaned and wiped and everything. It‘s just going to be he say she say.” When asked about the murder weapon, Gonzalez told Clift the gun he used for the crime was “swimmin” (sic) and then inquired whether getting rid of the evidence was “a plus.” Gonzalez told Clift there were no footprints left at the scene because he had been on concrete. Gonzalez then spoke of another incident, which Clift described as a “carjacking.” Gonzalez claimed he had left no evidence behind that would connect him to the stolen car. Gonzalez also described himself as a “cappa,” which Clift understood to refer to a person who had committed a crime that would subject him to capital punishment. Gonzalez mentioned disfiguring his face so that he could not be identified in a lineup, and having “special privileges” among the inmates, which Clift understood to be a reference to having committed a very serious crime such as killing a police officer.
Detective Miguel Beltran also spoke to Gonzalez. When Beltran asked about a murder that Gonzalez had supposedly committed, Gonzalez said “it was a hooda,” which Beltran interpreted to be the slang for a police officer, and described the victim as a female. Gonzalez also told Beltran about a bike that
Gonzalez told another undercover agent, Detective Noyola, that he shot a female police officer after she had showed him her badge. Noyola also testified that when he was in the holding cell, Gonzalez told Flint not to talk to anyone “because [they were] going to ride this all the way out.” While in the holding cell with Noyola, Flint said that if the “bitch” had “given up her wallet she wouldn‘t have been killed,” but Gonzalez “bet [the police] d[id]n‘t have anything about [the] case.”
After Gonzalez and Flint were processed and provided notice of the charges against them, including murder, they were put into a holding cell with Detective Manuel Avina. Avina talked to Gonzalez about the worst sentence for Flint, to which Gonzalez responded “life.” Gonzalez and Flint wondered if someone was snitching and if they had to kill any witnesses who might testify. Gonzalez wanted to “keep Justin Flint limited in his statements” and told him to “shut up” about the murder. They strategized about how to behave during the investigation.
4. Investigation of Jessica Rowan and Celina Gonzalez
In addition to conducting the undercover operation, law enforcement obtained an order authorizing a wiretap on six different phone lines that were affiliated with Gonzalez and his acquaintances. Pursuant to those wiretaps, police intercepted conversations between Jessica Rowan, who had been Gonzalez‘s girlfriend for 12 years and was the mother of his two children, and Gonzalez‘s sister, Celina Gonzalez. During a phone call,
After having intercepted those communications, Detectives McMahon and O‘Dowd interviewed Rowan, who told them she was at a barbeque with Gonzalez the night before the shooting and was in bed with him on the morning of the shooting. While in Rowan‘s presence, O‘Dowd acted as if he had received a call on his cell phone and discussed “divers going into the ocean.” After getting off the phone, O‘Dowd told his partner “it was in pieces,” but did not specify what object he was talking about. Police also interviewed Celina, who likewise passed along the alibi that she and Rowan had discussed during their call.
After her police interview, Rowan visited Gonzalez in jail and held up a note for him to read explaining the alibi she and Celina had created. The note also stated that divers were searching for a gun. When Gonzalez read the note, he exclaimed, “Oh fuck.” During subsequent phone conversations, Gonzalez told Rowan he committed the crime with the “White boy” he had purchased a computer from, whom Rowan identified as Flint. Gonzalez also directed Rowan to talk to his friend “Psycho” and tell him to deal with any potential snitches. Rowan understood this to mean that Psycho should kill any potential snitch. As directed, Rowan called Psycho and told him,
Police eventually arrested Rowan and Celina and charged them with obstruction of justice for having fabricated a false alibi. Rowan and Celina both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and their pleas included an agreement to testify against Gonzalez. Though their testimony would be considered in determining their sentence, the plea did not promise leniency in exchange for testifying.
At trial, Rowan testified that around the time of the shooting, Gonzalez told her he had “done something” in Long Beach and had to leave the city. He explained that he and a friend had tried to rob a woman to get money for drugs and a gun went off. He had demanded the victim‘s money and tried to grab her purse, but a struggle ensued. During the struggle, the woman pulled out a gun and a police badge and a gun discharged. He then ran from the scene.
Rowan further testified that a day or two after the shooting, she went to Celina‘s house with Gonzalez. Rowan stated that Gonzalez was acting nervous and strange and had said that he wanted to go to Long Beach immediately. Gonzalez then retrieved a newspaper and showed them a story about the shooting of Rosa, which included her picture, and stated, “I told you I had done something in Long Beach.” A few days later Gonzalez asked to borrow Rowan‘s car, telling her he was driving to the beach to get rid of something. When he returned, Gonzalez told her he had gotten rid of the gun, explaining that he had sanded it down and cut it into pieces.
Rowan also acknowledged during her testimony that she had been charged with obstruction of justice and that she and Celina had fabricated an alibi that they passed along to the police. She explained that her phone conversations with Celina and her jailhouse conversations with Gonzalez had been surreptitiously recorded. She also acknowledged that she had cooperated with law enforcement, signed a proffered statement attesting to statements Gonzalez had made about the crime and entered into an agreement to tell the truth at trial.
Celina provided testimony that was corroborative of much of Rowan‘s testimony. Like Rowan, Celina acknowledged she had been charged with obstruction of justice after the police intercepted a conversation in which she and Rowan had discussed fabricating an alibi. She also testified about the incident involving the newspaper that occurred at her house, explaining that Rowan and Gonzalez had been visiting her and Gonzalez was “walking around nervous.” He went outside, retrieved a newspaper, and started “flipping out.” There was a picture of Rosa on the front page of the paper. Gonzalez then repeatedly stated, “this is her” and that “it was a robbery that went wrong.”
Celina also testified that she told police Gonzalez had said he thought he shot a female police officer. He also stated that the shooting had occurred on “Eucalyptus” and that he
Gonzalez did not present any evidence at the guilt stage.
B. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution‘s evidence
At the penalty phase, the prosecution presented evidence of a number of robberies Gonzalez had allegedly committed in 1994. A witness testified about an armed robbery at a restaurant in Long Beach during which a young Hispanic male had pointed a firearm at her boyfriend and demanded his wallet. Another witness testified that he and three others had been in a parking lot located in Long Beach when three individuals robbed them at gunpoint. A liquor store owner and his brother testified that they were robbed inside their store at gun point by three individuals, one of whom fired a shotgun as he was fleeing. A man described being robbed at gunpoint by three Latino men while waiting in his car to use an ATM. Two Baskin Robbins employees described being robbed inside a Long Beach store by three armed men. A police officer who had investigated the string of robberies testified that several of the victims had identified Gonzalez as the perpetrator. A second investigating officer testified that Gonzalez admitted he had committed the four robberies and that he was “the one that usually holds the gun in the robbery.” A district attorney‘s investigator described Gonzalez‘s admission to additional robberies committed during the same time period.
The prosecution also presented evidence of violent crimes Gonzalez had allegedly committed in 2006. A witness described an incident outside a restaurant in Downey in which a person had fired six or seven gunshots in the direction of a vehicle that
Another witness described suffering five gunshot wounds during a separate incident in Long Beach. The victim was sitting on his porch when two Hispanic men came around the corner; one of them yelled “motherfucker this is BP,” a reference to “Barrio Pobre” street gang, and began shooting. An investigating detective testified that the shooting was part of an ongoing gang dispute, and that Gonzalez was a known member of Barrio Pobre. A criminalist testified that shell casings from the Downey shooting, the Long Beach shooting, and a third shooting had been fired from the same gun.
An additional witness testified that Gonzalez had pointed a gun at him and taken his keys during a carjacking. Rowan testified that Gonzalez had made statements to her about stealing a car, which she had seen him drive. The statements that Gonzalez made to Rowan about the car theft and the vehicle that she had seen him driving matched the victim‘s description of the carjacking incident.
The prosecution presented additional testimony about several incidents that occurred while Gonzalez was incarcerated in 2007. A deputy testified that when he was doing searches of inmates before they came to court, Gonzalez‘s cell door was mistakenly left open, and he attacked the deputy. Another deputy described an incident where a new inmate shouted to Gonzalez thаt he wanted to attack a correctional officer, and Gonzalez shouted back that he would like to help “put another notch on my belt.”
The prosecution also presented two family members as witnesses. Officer Martin, who was Rosa‘s longtime partner, described how they had met, their plans for adopting a child and Rosa‘s early life in Mexico and then the United States. She described the effort Rosa had put in to get a college degree and to become a police officer. She also described her profound sense of loss when Rosa died. Rosa‘s sister described their close sibling relationship and Rosa‘s early life. She also described a period of time when Rosa and Martin took care of the sister‘s children so that the children might have a better life.
Finally, over an objection from the defense, the prosecution played an eight-minute victim impact video. The video included emotional descriptions of Rosa by family, friends, and colleagues, some of whom had also testified. At certain points in the video, individuals were shown standing in a cemetery while they described Rosa. At other times, their descriptions were played over photo montages of Rosa. Soft music played in the background throughout.
2. Defense‘s evidence
Gonzalez‘s paternal aunt testified that Gonzalez‘s father had been in prison since Gonzalez was an infant and was
One of Gonzalez‘s paternal uncles described his criminal and family history. Thе uncle had gone to prison as an accessory to the murder Gonzalez‘s father was incarcerated for. Like other members of the Gonzalez family, the uncle and Gonzalez‘s father were active gang members for many years. The uncle saw Gonzalez recruited into a gang and was unable to stop it. He believed that Gonzalez had lacked a positive role model and that his mother was indifferent to whether her son spent his childhood on the street.
Another paternal aunt testified that Gonzalez‘s father had a drug problem that led to his incarceration when Gonzalez was three years old. After Gonzalez‘s father went to prison and his mother had started using heroin, Gonzalez went to live with the aunt for about eight months and improved in school. But after that brief period, he returned to living with his mother in a roach-infested building controlled by gangs. Gonzalez was sentenced to the California Youth Authority a few years after leaving his aunt‘s care. She told the jury that she did not want Gonzalez put to death, that she loved him, and that she felt he was a part of her.
Gonzalez‘s mother testified about her son‘s upbringing. His biological father had a drug problem but visited Gonzalez
Rowan described her history with Gonzalez and his drug problem. They had raised three children together, which included two children he had fathered and a third child who had a different father; Gonzalez treated all three of the children well. Rowan explained that after Gonzalez was released from the California Youth Authority he did not know how to get a job or how to get around on his own. He had a serious drug problem that he supported through occasional jobs and by committing crimes. On cross-examination, Rowan admitted Gonzalez was often violent with her and stole purses as a means of supporting himself.
Gonzalez‘s father testified that he had not seen his son since he went to prison when Gonzalez was three years old. Gonzalez‘s father had gone to the California Youth Authority for armed robbery at the age of 17, had a drug problem and was involved in gangs. He had communicated occasionally with Gonzalez by mail but was never in a position to provide paternal guidance.
A. Guilt Phase Issues
1. Sufficient evidence supports the attempted robbery conviction
Gonzalez argues that his conviction for attempted robbery must be overturned because there was insufficient evidence apart from his own out-of-court statements to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. This rule, which “has [its] roots in the common law” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1169 (Alvarez)), precludes “convictions for criminal conduct not proven except by the uncorroborated extrajudicial statements of the accused. [Citations.] [It] is intended to ensure that one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.) ” ‘The amount of independent proof of a crime required [to satisfy the corpus delicti rule] is quite small.’ [Citation.] The prosecution need not adduce ‘independent evidence of every physical act constituting an element of an offense.’ [Citation.] Instead, it need only make ‘some indication that the charged crime actually happened,’ so as to ensure ‘that the accused is not admitting to a crime that never occurred.’ ” (People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265, 317 (Krebs).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of criminal conduct, even if a noncriminal explanation is also plausible.” (Alvarez, at p. 1171.) We have previously applied the corpus delicti rule to inchoate crimes
Gonzalez contends that apart from his own extrajudicial statements, there was insufficient evidence to permit an inference that there was an attempt to rob Rosa. Robbery is defined as “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” (
Given the low quantum of proof that is required, we are satisfied that the prosecution provided the ” ‘minimal’ ” amount of independent evidence necessary to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. (People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 [“we have described [the necessary] quantum of evidence as ‘slight’ [citation] or ‘minimal’ “].) The evidence at trial showed two men were seen riding bicycles in a residential neighborhood early in the morning and gunshots were heard shortly thereafter. Around that time, survеillance video in the area captured images of Gonzalez on a bicycle. Rosa‘s body was found near her car, which was parked in the driveway of a residence with the trunk open and the keys hanging from the keyhole. A bicycle was lying on the ground nearby. Several items were inside the trunk, including Rosa‘s purse, which was partially open, and a firearm with a bullet that appeared to have been jammed inside it, and Rosa‘s police badge. There was no evidence of any sexual or other form of motive for the confrontation that led to Rosa‘s death, nor was there any evidence that the perpetrators knew the victim. A jury might reasonably conclude this evidence provides at least ” ’ “some indication” ’ ” (Krebs, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 317) that the assailants surprised Rosa while she was standing near the open trunk of her car, which contained a partially open purse, and then forcibly attempted to take her property, but killed her in an ensuing struggle and then fled.4
In People v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268 (Valencia), we held that testimony showing an “apartment door had been broken open, and one of the persons inside was bleeding from a . . . head injury” was sufficient to “permit[] an inference of robbery.” (Id. at p. 297.) We explained, “[a] broken-open apartment door and a man inside with a bleeding head wound suggest robbery, a very common purpose for a home invasion.
The evidence here — that two men with no relation to the victim were seen riding bicycles near the crime scene early in the morning, a bicycle was abandoned near the victim‘s body and her belongings, which included a jammed firearm and a police badge, were in an open car trunk and her purse was partially open — is at least as suggestive of robbery as the evidence at issue in Ray and Valencia.5 While the evidence does not preclude that the perpetrators may have had a different motive, it is nonetheless sufficient to support an inference of attempted robbery.6
Gonzalez argues the trial court erred in admitting all statements obtained during the undercover operation that law enforcement performed while he and Flint were being transported to, and then held at, the Los Angeles County jail.7 Gonzalez contends the statements were inadmissible because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached at that time. Alternatively, he argues the delay in bringing charges against him for Rosa‘s murder violated his due process rights because such conduct delayed appointment of counsel. Both claims are without merit.
The right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment does not attach until ” ’ “the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings — whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” ’ ” (Rothgery v. Gillespie County (2008) 554 U.S. 191, 198; see People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1079.) At that point, “the State‘s relationship with the defendant has become solidly adversarial” (Rothgery, at p. 202) — ” ‘the government has committed itself to prosecute, and . . . the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified. It is then that a defendant finds himself faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law.’ ” (United States v. Gouveia (1984) 467 U.S. 180, 189 (Gouveia).)
Here, Gonzalez made the incriminating statements over a month before the complaint was filed against him. Thus, under existing authority, Gonzalez‘s Sixth Amendment rights had not yet attached (and could not have been violated) when the undercover operations were performed. (Compare People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 658 [rejecting claim that use of undercover agent violated 6th Amend. right to counsel after the defendant had become “foсus of the investigation,” but had not yet been formally charged], with Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 299 [“the government may not use an undercover agent to circumvent the Sixth Amendment right to counsel once a suspect has been charged with the crime“].)
Gonzalez does not contend otherwise. Instead, he appears to argue we should adopt the Sixth Amendment test that Justice Stevens articulated in his concurring opinion in Gouveia, supra, 467 U.S. 180. Justice Stevens‘s concurrence argued that “[i]f the authorities take a person into custody in order to interrogate him or to otherwise facilitate the process of making a case against him, . . . the person is sufficiently ‘accused’ to be entitled to the protections of the Sixth Amendment.” (Id. at p. 197 (conc. opn. of Stevens, J.).) If that concurrence reflected controlling law, Gonzalez would likely have a valid claim. But it does not. To the extent Gonzalez is suggesting we should revisit the “well established” (U.S. v. Kourani (2d Cir. 2021) 6 F.4th 345, 353) rules governing when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel commences, we decline to do so.
3. There was no abuse of discretion in denying defense counsel‘s request for a second continuance
Gonzalez argues the court erred in denying his attorney‘s request for a second continuance of the trial.
a. Background
Approximately one year after defense counsеl was appointed, she filed a continuance motion seeking a four-month delay of trial. The filing included a declaration describing
One month in advance of the new trial date, defense counsel filed a motion to continue the trial for another four months. In the attached declaration, which was filed under seal to protect the defense‘s trial strategy, counsel explained there were three avenues of investigation she had not yet completed. First, counsel stated she had not yet received “any feedback from her DNA expert.” The declaration provided no time estimate as to when she expected to hear from the expert nor did it describe what exculpatory evidence she hoped to obtain (or the likelihood that such evidence would be obtained). Second, counsel stated that she needed to “obtain the services of both a psychiatrist and psychologist” for the penalty phase. Again, however, counsel provided no details regarding the expected timetable for obtaining such services or the nature of the evidence she hoped to gain. Finally, counsel asserted that there “remain[ed] other penalty phase witnesses that must be located and interviewed.” No details were provided about the identity of those purported witnesses or the type of information they might have that would be relevant to the penalty phase.
At the motion hearing, defense counsel informed the court that although she had explained to Gonzalez that a continuance was in his best interest, he remained unwilling to waive time and had indicated he would seek to represent himself if a second
The court questioned whether it could find good cause for a second lengthy continuance, explaining: “[T]he defendant appears to be an intelligent young man. He understands what is going on and he understand[s] the serious nature of this case. And I found good cause in the past. I don‘t know if I can keep doing that in good conscience. A defendant can waive whatever right that he has if he wishes to . . . . And I don‘t know if I can keep finding good cause to put it over, especially for the amount of time that [we are] talking about. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . . [We are] talking about five months. . . . I find that to be a difficult thing for me to do when he refuses to waive time.” In response, defense counsel acknowledged that she “under[stood] the court‘s concern” but felt an “obligation” to seek a continuance because she did not feel she would be prepared on mitigation. The court then denied the motion, explaining, “I cannot find good cause for a five-month continuance when the defendant refuses to waive time. All I can say is whatever needs to be done must be done expeditiously.”
b. Discussion
We review a trial court‘s order denying a motion to continue for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Jackson (2009) 45 Cal.4th 662, 677–678; see also People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 920 [“[A]n order denying a continuance is seldom successfully attacked“];
Under the unusual circumstances presented here, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that substantial justice would not be accomplished by granting the second motion for a continuance. While a court facing a continuance request must normally weigh the anticipated benefit to the defendant against the burdens the continuance would have on other participants in the trial (see Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 450), there was another factor to consider in this case: Gonzalez had repeatedly stated that he was against a continuance, implicating not only his statutory right to a speedy trial but his constitutional rights. (See
Further complicating matters, defense counsel informed the court that Gonzalez had indicated he would choose to represent himself in the event of a second continuance. The trial court might reasonably conclude that whatever benefits could be
On the record presented here, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in attempting to balance the right to effective counsel versus the asserted right to a speedy trial by granting one continuance over defendant‘s objection, but not two. (See Townsend, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 784 [“counsel [does not] possess[] carte blanche under any and all conditions to postpone his client‘s trial indefinitely“].)
4. The wiretap application was not facially invalid
Gonzalez argues the trial court should have suppressed any evidence derived from communications that law enforcement intercepted pursuant to the wiretap order. As discussed in more detail below, John Spillane, the chief deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County, signed the wiretap application and attested that he was “the person designated to act as District Attorney in [District Attorney Steve Cooley‘s] absence.” Although California‘s wiretap law expressly allows for such designation (see
a. Background
(i) The trial court proceedings
In August 2006, Chief Deputy District Attorney John Spillane filed an application for an order authorizing wiretaps on several phones affiliated with Gоnzalez. The application included a declaration, made under penalty of perjury, from Spillane stating, “Steve Cooley is the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles and I am the person designated to act as District Attorney in his absence pursuant to
Prior to trial, Gonzalez filed a motion arguing that any evidence derived from the wiretaps should be suppressed because Spillane‘s application did not include any information confirming that District Attorney Cooley was absent when Spillane had sought the order. Gonzalez‘s motion contended that the district attorney‘s office had attempted to “take advantage of an ambiguity” in the statutory provision that authorizes a person designated to act in the district attorney‘s
Gonzalez argued the language in
Gonzalez further contended that based on the wording of the wiretap application, it was unclear whether District Attorney Cooley was truly absent when Spillane had sought the order. According to Gonzalez, Spillane‘s declaration stated only that he was ” ‘the person designated to act as District Attorney in [Steve Cooley‘s] absence,’ but ma[de] no assertion whatsoever regarding Cooley‘s actual absence from his position.” Gonzalez further argued that because the “government ha[d] made no showing that Cooley was, in fact, absent when the application . . . was approved . . . , that application and the
In its opposition to the motion to suppress, the prosecution did not dispute that
At the suppression hearing, defense counsel argued “the problem” was thаt although
In response, the prosecution argued defense counsel‘s contention that the district attorney must “prove [he was absent] and . . . need[s] to document why he‘s absent” found no support “under the statute” or in the “case law.” The prosecution further argued that Spillane‘s under-oath statement that he was the person designated to act as district attorney when Cooley was absent provided “prima facie evidence” that he was properly designated; the wiretap statute required nothing more.
The trial court agreed with the prosecution, concluding that
(ii) Proceedings on appeal
On appeal, Gonzalez reiterates his argument that the wiretap application was invalid because “there was no proof that the elected district attorney of Los Angeles County, Steven Cooley, was actually absent from his position when his Chief Deputy, John Spillane, made the application.” His brief discusses at length United States v. Perez-Valencia (9th Cir 2013) 727 F.3d 852 (Perez-Valencia), a Ninth Circuit decision interpretating
b. Discussion
(i) Summary of federal and state wiretap laws
Title III of the federal
Title III allows states to authorize only the following categories of law enforcement officials to seek a wiretap order: “The principal prosecuting attorney of any State, or the principal prosecuting attorney of any political subdivision thereof, if such attorney is authorized by a statute of that State . . . .” (
Section 629.50(a) sets forth a detailed description of additional categories of information a wiretap application must contain, including (among other things) the identity of the applicant, the identity of the agency that will carry out the wiretap, the facts and circumstances demonstrating the need for
(ii) Section 629.50(a) does not require that the application describe the circumstances of the district attorney‘s absence
Gonzalez argues that the wiretap application filed in this case was invalid because it did not include any information confirming the circumstances of District Attorney Steve Cooley‘s absence. But as defense counsel acknowledged at the suppression hearing, there is no language in California‘s wiretap laws that imposes such a requirement. Instead, the designation provision states only that an application for a wiretap order “shall be made in writing upon the personal oath or affirmation of . . . a district attorney, or the person designated to act as district attorney in the district attorney‘s absence.” (
In contrast to section 629.50(a)‘s designation provision, other sections of the wiretap statute do require that the application include information verifying certain standards have been met. In particular,
Gonzalez has likewise cited no case holding that a wiretap applicant who claims to have been lawfully designated to seek the application has a sua sponte duty to provide information confirming the legality of that designation. Indeed, the few cases we have found addressing similar claims have rejected such arguments. (See U.S. v. Terry (2d Cir. 1983) 702 F.2d 299, 311 [rejecting claim that application was invalid because it failed to include information showing that three assistant attorneys general with higher priority than the applicant “were absent or otherwise unavailable“]; U.S. v. Ruiz (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2010, No. 09 CR. 719 (DAB)) 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 123991, pp. *13–*14 [
The primary authority Gonzalez discusses in his appellate briefing is Perez-Valencia, supra, 727 F.3d 852, a case decided long after his trial was completed. However, nothing in Perez-Valencia suggests
We think it clear, however, that when an applicant such as Spillane attests, “Steve Cooley is the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, and I am the person designated to act as District Attorney in his absence pursuant to
In sum, we decline to read into
5. Any violation of Gonzalez‘s right to confrontation was harmless
Gonzalez argues the trial court‘s admission of certain testimony related to the DNA evidence violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the
a. Background
Juli Watkins, a criminalist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Department, obtained genetic samples from the bicycle that was left near the scene of the shooting. She also received a reference sample from Rosa. Watkins was able to generate a DNA profile of Rosa, but the samples from the bicycle were contaminated and unusable. Watkins‘s colleague, Kari Yoshida, collected new samples from the bicycle and was able to generate a DNA profile of a contributor to one of those samples. In July 2006, Watkins and Yoshida co-authored and signed a report describing the analyses they had each performed to dаte.
After receiving notification that Gonzalez was a possible match to the DNA from the bicycle sample, Watkins obtained a reference sample from him and generated a DNA profile. She
Watkins testified at the trial, but Yoshida did not. Watkins explained the roles she and Yoshida had each played in producing the relevant DNA evidence. Watkins also testified as to her determination that Gonzalez was a possible contributor to the bicycle sample. When asked, “How common would it be for a person to have been included as a possible contributor,” Watkins answered, “A conservative statistic . . . was estimated to be one out of one billion.”
b. Any confrontation clause violation was harmless
Gonzalez argues the trial court committed two evidentiary errors that violated his rights under the confrontation clause. First, it allowed Watkins to testify about the DNA analysis that her colleague, Yoshida, had conducted on the bicycle, which resulted in the profile that Watkins ultimately determined to be a possible match with Gonzalez‘s profile. Second, the court admitted into evidence a report that included Yoshida‘s analysis.
“The Sixth Amendment‘s Confrontation Clause provides that, ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ ” (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 42.) ”Crawford held that the clause bars introduction of ‘testimonial’ hearsay
In 2012, this court issued three companion cases that addressed confrontation clause claims involving testimony detailing the results of technical reports that had been prepared by a nontestifying witness. (See People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569; People v. Dungo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 608 (Dungo); People v. Rutterschmidt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 650 (Rutterschmidt).) Those cases generated numerous separate opinions, reflecting the fragmented nature of the high court‘s reasoning in this area. (See Dungo, at p. 616 [“Sixth Amendment confrontation right issue [was] far from easy to resolve in light of the widely divergent views expressed by the justices of the United States Supreme Court in . . . recent . . . cases“]; id. at p. 628 (conc. opn. of Chin, J.) [concluding that it is “difficult to determine what to make” of high court‘s confrontation clause jurisprudence]; Lopez, at p. 590 (dis. opn. of Liu, J.) [the multitude of opinions in Lopez, Dungo, and Rutterschmidt reflected “the muddled state of current doctrine concerning the Sixth Amendment right of criminal defendants to confront the state‘s witnesses against them“].) More recently, we have noted that ” ‘considerable flux’ [continues to] surround[] the high court‘s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence” (People v. Schultz (2020) 10 Cal.5th 623, 660, fn. 8), and that “[a] comprehensive definition of the term ‘testimonial’ awaits articulation.” (Amezcua, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 912.)
The prosecution‘s case against Gonzalez centered on two categories of highly incriminating evidence that were
During the undercover operation, most of which was recorded, Gonzalez informed multiple agents that he had shot a female police officer. Gonzalez also disclosed numerous details about the crime, explaining (among other things) that he had left a bicycle at the scene, that he had thrown the murder weapon into the water and that he had not left any footprints because the crime occurred on pavement. Gonzalez and Flint were also heard discussing killing any witnesses to the murder, and Flint stated that the victim would not have been killed if she had given up her wallet.
Gonzalez‘s girlfriend and sister provided additional, highly incriminating testimony. Rowan and Celina both explained they had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice after law enforcement intercepted conversations in which they were heard fabricating an alibi for Gonzalez. They both testified that Gonzalez had admitted he shot a female police officer and showed them a newspaper with a story about the crime. Rowan also testified that Gonzalez told her he left a bicycle at the scene of the crime and had thrown the murder weapon into the ocean. Rowan further acknowledged that law enforcement had recorded incriminating conversations she had with Gonzalez while visiting him in prison. During those recorded conversations, Gonzalez instructed her to contact an acquaintance and ask him to take care of any possible snitches;
Given this highly incriminating additional evidence of guilt, we are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned the same verdict even in the absence of the DNA evidence.
6. Gonzalez has failed to establish prosecutorial or judicial misconduct
Gonzalez argues the prosecution violated his due process rights by asking two key witnesses — Rowan and Celina — a series of leading questions. He contends the prosecution and the trial court committed a second due process violation by coercing those witnesses to say what the prosecutor wanted them to say. Both claims lack merit.
a. Background
Rowan and Celina were both charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice for having falsified an alibi for Gonzalez. Rowan entered a guilty plea with an agreed upon sentеnce of up to three years depending on the judge‘s assessment of her veracity in testifying at Gonzalez‘s trial. Celina likewise pleaded guilty with her agreed upon sentence contingent on testifying truthfully at trial.
During her direct examination at trial, Rowan acknowledged that she had previously testified in the case and was facing sentencing for her obstruction charge. Through much of the examination, the prosecutor asked questions consisting of declarative statements followed by, “isn‘t that correct?” The prosecutor and the judge also repeatedly admonished Rowan that she should answer the questions that had been asked, and the judge gave Rowan‘s attorney an
Similarly, in questioning Celina, the prosecutor asked a series of narrative questions which she answered through “yes” or “no” answers. Among other topics, the prosecutor asked Celina about her conversations with police following her arrest and repeatedly reminded her that she was under oath and had to tell the truth. When Celina answered one such question with a question — “Why do you keep asking me? He didn‘t tell me directly” — the trial court admonished her not to ask questions and invited Celina‘s counsel to talk with her. Outside the presence of the jury, the court also reminded Celina that she was under oath and then encouraged the prosecutor to refresh Celina‘s memory. When defense counsel objected that the court was intimidating Celina, the judge replied, “Number one, she will not ask questions of anybody. And number two, she shall tell the truth, period. It‘s that simple. That‘s not intimidation. That‘s doing what‘s right.” Following the exchange, Celina repeatedly responded “yes” to a series of questions about what she had previously told law enforcement about the crime.
b. Discussion
(i) The prosecution‘s use of leading questions
Gonzalez first argues that the prosecution‘s decision to rely on leading questions during the direct examination of Rowan and Celina constituted prosecutorial misconduct. “A prosecutor‘s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state
As a general matter, a “leading question may not be asked of a witness on direct or redirect examination.” (
While some of the prosecutor‘s questions were leading, we find that the method of questioning did not constitute misconduct nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing the interrogation to proceed in such a manner. The transcript shows that on many occasions, Rowan and Celina claimed not to remember (or were willfully refusing to recall) details about the prior statements they had made regarding the crime. Indeed, at one point, Gonzalez‘s own counsel acknowledged Celina appeared to have difficulty remembering precise details of events that had happened several years ago.
The record also supports an inference that Rowan and Celina were sufficiently “hostile” to permit leading questioning. Indeed, both witnesses acknowledged at the outset that it was difficult for them to testify. Moreover, both witnesses had a close relationship with Gonzalez and had previously lied to police to protect him. Given the witnesses’ purported difficulty in remembering what had occurred, the obvious inconsistencies between their trial testimony and their prior statements to police and their close relationship to Gonzalez, we find no error in either the trial court‘s decision to allow leading questions or the prosecution‘s use of such questions.
(ii) Admonishments to tell the truth
Gonzalez next contends that the trial court and the prosecution unlawfully coerced Rowan and Celina into providing testimony favorable to the prosecution. He identifies several distinct categories of alleged misconduct, including: (1)
We first consider whether the trial court engaged in unlawful coercion by reminding the witnesses they were under oath and inviting their respective attorneys to talk to them about testifying truthfully. Gonzalez cites no case holding that the mere act of reminding a witness she has an obligation to testify truthfully, or inviting a witness‘s counsel to discuss the consequences of perjury with her client, qualifies as a due process violation or otherwise constitutes misconduct. Indeed, the case law is to the contrary. (Cf. People v. Harbolt (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 140, 155 [no misconduct where prosecutor‘s “comments . . . amounted to a ‘mere warning’ about the dangers
The primary authority Gonzalez relies on, Webb v. Texas (1972) 409 U.S. 95 (Webb), has little in common with this case. In Webb, the trial court, acting in the presence of the jury, told the defense‘s only witness that he did not have to testify and further directed that if he lied under oath, the court would “personally see” to it that the grand jury would indict him for perjury and that he would likely be convicted and sentenced to several years in prison (and also impair his chances for parole). (Id. at pp. 95–96.) After receiving this warning, the witness chose not to testify. The Supreme Court found that such conduct violated the defendant‘s right to due process, explaining that the “lengthy admonition” had gone far beyond merely warning the witness of the “necessity to tell the truth,” and had instead used “unnecessarily strong terms [that] could well have exerted such duress on the witness’ mind as to preclude him from making a free and voluntary choice whether or not to testify.” (Id. at pp. 97, 98.)
Nothing similar occurred here. The trial court in this case merely called the witness‘s attention to the importance of testifying in a truthful manner and, outside the presence of the jury, invited each witness‘s counsel to consult with their сlient about “telling the truth and volunteering answers without the prosecutor having to constantly remind her of what her statements have been in the past.” We see nothing in these admonitions that was so extreme as to amount to a due process violation.
We find nothing in the prosecution‘s conduct that amounted to “substantial and wrongful interference” with the witnesses’ testimony. (Juan, supra, 704 F.3d at p. 1142.) When faced with two hostile witnesses who had provided testimony that was inconsistent with their prior statements to law
Gonzalez also argues the trial court violated his right to confrontation when it sustained objections during the cross-examinations of Rowan and Celina. We find no error.
a. Background
During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Rowan if she was concerned “whether or not [she was] going to get a deal on [her] case” and if she was afraid of going to prison for three years. She responded yes. Defense counsel then asked, “You don‘t want to go to prison for three years, do you?” Rowan responded no.
Defense counsel then asked Rowan, “So you‘re trying to make sure thаt you say everything that the prosecutor wants you to say, aren‘t you?” The prosecution objected to the question as argumentative, and the trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel attempted to reframe her question several times, asking Rowan if she was giving testimony that she thought would “be pleasing to the prosecutor“; whether she was “trying to make sure [she said] anything that the prosecution want[ed] [her] to say“; and whether she was concerned that she would spend three years in prison if the prosecution “is not in agreement with what [she] said.” The trial court sustained objections to all these questions.
During a sidebar, defense counsel explained she was trying to ask Rowan if the testimony she had provided on direct examination was “tainted by the fact that if the prosecutor [is] not in agreement, she will get her three years.” The trial court stated, “You can ask her that. That‘s a different question. You can certainly ask her that, yes.” Following the sidebar, defense
When cross-examining Celina, defense counsel engaged in a similar line of questioning, inquiring whether she was “concerned about [what] sentence [she] might get.” Celina answered yes. Defense counsel then asked, “And you want to agree with the prosecutor; isn‘t that right?” The prosecution objected to the question as argumentative, and the trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel asked Celina if the prosecution “has some control over what kind of sentence you get?” The prosecution objected on relevance grounds and the trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel then asked Celina, “Do you feel that the prosecutor may make an argument at your sentencing time with respect to what sentence you may get?” Celina responded yes. Counsel also asked her if she “want[ed] to give testimony that will help [her] out at [her] sentencing.” Celina again answered yes.
b. Discussion
Gonzalez contends the trial court violated his right to confrontation by improperly limiting the cross-examination of Rowan and Celina. (See People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 476 [a defendant “possesses a fundamental right to confront the witnesses against [him]. [Citations.] Cross-examination is a cornerstone of that fundamental right“].) To establish such a claim, Gonzalez must show he was “prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination
Gonzalez argues the trial court improperly prevented counsel from asking questions that were intended to show the testimony Rowan and Celina provided on direct examination was meant to “please the prosecutor” so that the prosecutor “would not incarcerate them for three years.” The record shows, however, that the defense was permitted to ask questions that elicited that very information. After a sidebar, defense counsel was permitted to ask Rowan whether she was worried that her answers to the prosecutor‘s questions might affect her “in terms of getting three years in state prison” and whether she had “given [her testimony] in such a way that . . . [would] cause [her] not to get three years in prison.” She responded affirmatively to both questions. Counsel was permitted to elicit similar testimony from Celina, inquiring whether the answers Celina had provided on direct examination had been made “to help [her]self out at [her] sentencing.” Counsel was also permitted to ask Celina whether she “want[ed] to give testimony that [would] help [her] out at [her] sentencing.”
Thus, the record makes clear defense counsel was allowed to ask Rowan and Celina questions that were intended to
8. The trial court did not err in admitting Gonzalez‘s statements regarding a crime involving a Mercedes
Gonzalez argues the trial court should have excluded a video clip in which he and undercover detective Javier Clift were shown discussing a crime involving a Merсedes. In an earlier portion of their recorded conversation (the admission of which Gonzalez has not contested), Clift and Gonzalez discussed Gonzalez‘s participation in a serious, possibly capital, offense that appeared to match the circumstances of Rosa‘s murder. In the clip Gonzalez challenges here, Clift asks Gonzalez why he was transferred from prison. Gonzalez responded, “I hope it‘s for the Mercedes. I‘ll be like, I‘ll take it Your Honor. Give it to me. How much 7, 10, 15, 20? Anything else.” Clift and another detective who also heard Gonzalez discussing this crime both described it as a “carjacking.”
Defense counsel argued the statements Gonzalez made in the clip were inadmissible because they referenced another crime that was unrelated to Rosa‘s murder. The prosecution, however, contended the statements qualified as a “form of admission.” The trial court agreed, concluding that the evidence was intended to show “a guilty frame of mind in that he‘s hoping his current incarceration is not for the murder of the named victim in this case, but for a car theft instead. So that the other
On appeal, Gonzalez argues that the clip should have been excluded because: (1) it was not relevant to the charged crime; (2) the sole purpose of the evidence was to show Gonzalez‘s bad character (see
Moreover, contrary to Gonzalez‘s assertions, the record makes clear there was a purpose for introducing his statements about the carjacking other than to show bad character or disposition to commit the charged offense. As the trial court explained, the statements tended to show that Gonzalez believed the other crime he had committed, which matched the circumstances of Rosa‘s shooting, was a more serious crime. (See
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s determination that the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. (See Rogers, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 326.) ” ‘Prejudice for purposes of
In this case, the trial court acknowledged it would provide a limiting instruction directing the jury that evidence of other crimes was not relevant for bad character or predisposition. Moreover, the “other crime” referenced in the video clip was far less inflammatory than the murder Gonzalez was being tried for; indeed, Gonzalez‘s videotaped statements described the incident involving the Mercedes as merely taking someone “for a little ride.” (See People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 41 [“The danger of undue prejudice is . . . lessened if evidence of the uncharged acts was ‘no more inflammatory than the testimony concerning the charged offenses’ “].) Gonzalez, in turn, has provided no explanation why the probative value of this other crimes evidence was substantially outweighed by the probability that it would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. Instead, he merely states in conclusory fashion that the other crimes evidence would be more prejudicial than probative. (Cf. Bryant, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 382 [“reject[ing] . . . conclusory” arguments raised in defendant‘s brief]; People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573 [“Perhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant‘s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error“].) For all
9. Gonzalez has failed to establish any error regarding the admission of oral testimony describing the conversations depicted in the video clips
Gonzalez argues the trial court erred when it allowed several of the detectives who participated in the undercover operation to testify about the conversations depicted in the video clips that were shown to the jury. The testimony was intended to provide context about how the conversations arose, clarify what was being discussed, and explain the meaning of certain slang terms. As one example, the prosecution asked a testifying detective to identify who he understood Gonzalez to be talking about in a video clip where Gonzalez references “the White boy.” The detective testified that Gonzalez was referring to Flint and then explained his basis for that belief. In another exchange, a detective was asked what he was referring to in a portion of a video where the detective was heard saying, “it‘s got to come out sooner or later.” The detective responded that he was referring to “the murder of Rosa,” and then explained that he had been talking about that subject with Gonzalez for the entire day. The detectives also explained the meaning of certain slang terms like “hooda” (a police officer (see ante, at p. 5)) and “cappa” (a person who has committed a crime that would subject him to capital punishment (ibid.)).
Gonzalez initially contends that the detectives’ testimony violated the “secondary evidence rule” (People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 269), which generally prohibits the admission of oral testimony to prove the content of writings. (See
First, it is undisputed that the jury was shown the writings in question (in this case videos), and Gonzalez has cited no case in which the secondary evidence rule was applied when the writing itself was admitted into evidence. (See Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 475 [“The purpose of the best evidence rule is ‘to minimize the possibilities of misinterpretation of writings by requiring the production of the original writings themselves, if available’ “]; People v. Son (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 689, 696 [“Defendant has not pointed to any case in which the secondary evidence rule was applied even though the writing itself was admitted into evidence, nor are we aware of any such case“].) Second, as the trial court observed, the purpose of the detectives’ testimony was not to prove the actual wоrds that were said in the video, but rather to give general context as to the subject matter of the conversations that were depicted in the recording and explain the meaning of some of the terms the speakers used. (See Son, at p. 1170 [officer‘s testimony “highlight[ing] important details” of a video were not intended to prove the content of the writing and thus did not violate secondary evidence rule].)
Gonzalez separately contends that even if the secondary evidence rule is inapplicable, the detectives’ testimony describing the nature of the conversations shown on the videos “served only to ‘invade the province of the jury,’ which was perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusion” about the subject matter of those conversations. Although Gonzalez has not identified exactly which statements he believes should have been excluded, we understand his claim to challenge those portions of the detectives’ testimony in which they conveyed
We will assume Gonzalez has preserved this claim and reject the argument on its merits.18 “A lay witness may testify to an opinion if it is rationally based on the witness‘s perception and if it is helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony.” (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 153, citing
B. Penalty Phase Issues
1. Gonzalez has failed to establish error with respect to the admission of his statements referencing other crimes
Gonzalez challenges the admission at the penalty phase of two video clips recorded during the undercover operation.
a. Background
Gonzalez sought to exclude a video clip in which he made statements “concerning his participation in some otherwise unspecified carjacking involving a Mercedes.” The defense objected on the grounds that: (1) the video was cumulative of evidence the prosecution had presented during the guilt phase; and (2) the evidence only tended to prove a general propensity to commit crime. The prosecution argued the video was admissible as evidence of criminal activity involving the use of force (see
Gonzalez also challenged the admission of a video clip in which he told an undercover officer he had been involved in 27 armed robberies as a juvenile. Defense counsel objected that although the video contained a statement in which Gonzalez referenced having committed 27 robberies, the prosecution only intended to introduce corroborating evidence of some of those incidents. Counsel argued that because the prosecution had provided no “foundation for these so-called 27 robberies,” and could not “prove the corpus on all of these 27 robberies,” it was improper to admit a statement referencing that number of
b. Discussion
On appeal, Gonzalez argues that that while evidence of criminal activity involving the use of force is generally admissible at the penalty phase (see
The Attorney General arguеs that Gonzalez has forfeited any argument that such evidence was inadmissible under the corpus delicti rule because he failed to raise any such objection at the trial court. We agree that Gonzalez has forfeited the particular claims he raises here. Regarding the recorded statements referencing a carjacking, defense counsel never
Regarding the video referencing the robberies, defense counsel made it clear he was objecting to the portion of the video in which Gonzalez stated that he had committed 27 robberies. Such evidence was improper, defense counsel asserted, because the prosecution only intended to present independent evidence of some of those robberies, and thus “could not prove the corpus on all . . . 27 robberies.” The trial court agreed and made the prosecution remove the reference to the number of robberies. If defense counsel believed this was an insufficient remedy, and that the video clip should be excluded even with that modification, it had a duty to raise that argument with the court.
Moreover, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti of both a carjacking and multiple robberies. Regarding the carjacking, the prosecution presented testimony from a victim who stated that he had been taken to a house where he was carjacked. A detective testified the victim of the carjacking had picked Gonzalez out of a photo array. When describing the carjacking incident to undercover agents, Gonzalez had stated that the carjacking victim had been brought to a house, which matched the victim‘s description of the incident. Finally, Rowan testified that after Gonzalez had told her about the carjacking, she had seen him driving a car that was similar in appearance to the one he had described to her.
Regarding Gonzalez‘s admission that he had committed robberies as a juvenile, the prosecution presented testimony
2. The improрer aspects of the victim impact video were harmless
Gonzalez challenges the admission of an eight-minute video in which Rosa‘s friends and colleagues provided emotional statements lauding their relationship with her and describing the pain and loss they experienced from her death. Many of the participants spoke from a cemetery with music playing in the background. At times, the audio of the participant‘s tributes was juxtaposed with photos of Rosa. Several of the participants in the video also provided victim impact testimony during the penalty phase of the trial.
In assessing Gonzalez‘s objection to the video, the trial court explained that it did “not find [the video] dramatic or of the sort that would cause one to cry,” nor did the video contain
Although we have not adopted any “bright-line rules” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1288) “pertaining to the admissibility of videotape recordings of victim interviews” (ibid.), we have warned that “courts must exercise great caution in permitting the prosecution to present victim-impact evidence in the form of a lengthy videotaped or filmed tribute to the victim” (id. at p. 1289). While it is appropriate to use a video ” ’ ” ‘reminding the sentencer . . . [that] the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society’ ” [citation], . . . the prosecution may not introduce irrelevant or inflammatory material that ” ‘diverts the jury‘s attention from its proper role or invites an irrational, purely subjective response.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 794 (Kelly).) We have highlighted some characteristics of victim impact videos that can be especially problematic: “Particularly if the presentation lasts beyond a few moments, or emphasizes the childhood of an adult victim, or is accompanied by stirring music, the medium itself may assist in creating an emotional impact upon the jury that goes beyond what the jury might experience by viewing still photographs of the victim or listening to the victim‘s bereaved parents.” (Prince, at p. 1289.) Whether
While we normally review for ourselves the content of such videos, we accord some deference to the trial court‘s decision to admit the tape when, as here, the record confirms that the court viewed the videotape, considered its possible improper emotional effects and exercised its discretion to allow it. (See People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 366 (Zamudio).) Where the videotape includes impermissible elements, we assess whether those elements separated from the permissible features of the videotape prejudiced defendant. (See Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 798–799.)
We have viewed the videotape and find that it does contain some improper features. The music in the video has no apparent relevance other than to enhance the emotional effect of the video. (See People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 442 (Sandoval) [“because background music in victim impact presentations provides no relevant information and is potentially prejudicial, it is never permitted“]; Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 798.) Many of the individuals in the video offering testimonials are in a cemetery, and the camera moves toward them at times to draw attention to their emotional responses. (See ibid. [“Trial courts must not permit irrelevant . . . video techniques that enhance the emotion of the factual presentation“; “The videotape must . . . not present a ‘staged and contrived presentation’ “].) Because these features of the video had no apparent purpose other than to increase the viewer‘s emotional response, the trial court should have ordered the prosecution to remove them.
Gonzalez challenges the constitutionality of California‘s death penalty statute and implementing statutes on numerous grounds that we have previously rejected. We decline to reconsider our previous holdings that:
(i) ” ‘[T]he California death penalty statute is not impermissibly broad, whether considered on its face or as interpreted by this court’ ” (People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 267 (Dalton));
(ii) ” ’
(iii) ” ‘[t]he death penalty statute does not lack safeguards to avoid arbitrary and capricious sentencing . . . or constitute cruel and unusual punishment on the ground that it does not require either unanimity as to the truth of aggravating circumstances or findings beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance (other than
(iv) ” ‘[w]ritten findings by the jury during the penalty phase are not constitutionally required, and their absence does
(v) ” ‘[t]he federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, and against cruel and unusual punishment [citations], do not require intercase proportionality review on appeal’ ” (Dalton, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 268);
(vi) ” ’ “capital and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated and therefore may be treated differently without violating” a defendant‘s right to equal protection of the laws, due process of law, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishment’ ” (Dalton, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 268);
(vii) ” ’ “[t]he death penalty as applied in this state is not rendered unconstitutional through operation of international laws and treaties” ’ ” (Dalton, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 268);
(viii) “the trial court [is not] constitutionally required to instruct the jury that
C. Cumulative Error
Gonzalez contends the cumulative effect of errors at the guilt and penalty phase requires reversal. As discussed above, for purposes of the guilt phase, we have assumed that the admission of portions of Juli Watkins‘s testimony regarding the DNA evidence was error but conclude that any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no other errors to cumulate with respect to guilt.
For purposes of the penalty phase, we have found that certain aspects of the victim impact video submitted at the
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.
GROBAN, J.
We Concur:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
KRUGER, J.
JENKINS, J.
Notes
While some of those comments could be construed to endorse a broader interpretation of