Skip to content
Name: People v. Martinez
Case #: B289639
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 04/24/2019

Trial court erroneously instructed jury that defendant had the burden of proving a prosecution witness was an accomplice because acting in concert was an element of the charged offenses. Martinez and Smith were charged with sexual penetration in concert and rape in concert. After pleading guilty to rape in concert, Smith testified for the prosecution in Martinez's case. Martinez testified that Smith acted alone. On appeal Martinez argued it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury, over objection, that he had the burden to prove Smith was his accomplice. Held: Affirmed. When a witness is also an…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Anthony
Case #: A139352
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/08/2019

Trial court erred under Miranda by admitting defendant's statements to police that were elicited after police assured him they would not ask questions about a particular crime but did so anyway. Anthony, accompanied by fellow gang members, committed a gang-related killing of a man walking on a Berkeley street. When pursued by police, Anthony led them on a high speed chase that ended in two collisions, killing a driver in another vehicle, as well as a pedestrian. While in custody in Berkeley, Anthony invoked his right to counsel but then, for unknown reasons, initiated contact with Oakland police, who wanted…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chatman
Case #: C083509
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/04/2019

In pandering (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(1)) prosecution, trial court did not err by refusing defense's proposed modifications to CALCRIM No. 1151 based on People v. Zambia (2011) 51 Cal.4th 965. Chatman was found guilty of pimping and pandering in violation of section 266i, subdivision (a)(1). On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by refusing a modified instruction on pandering based on People v. Zambia, and counsel was ineffective for failing to request further modifications. Held: Affirmed. A person violates section 266i, subdivision (a)(1) when he procures another person for the purpose of prostitution. Chatman argued that, if…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Stinson
Case #: C077621
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/16/2018

Trial court did not err by modifying CALCRIM No. 1203 to specify that the intent to commit kidnapping for robbery includes the intent to aid in an escape. Stinson and his codefendant approached a man in a parked car, robbed him at gunpoint, and forced him into the trunk of his car. The defendants then left and, using the victim's keys, went to his home and robbed the victim's fiancé at gunpoint. Defendant was convicted of numerous robbery-related offenses, including kidnapping to commit robbery. Stinson challenged the trial court's modification of CALCRIM No. 1203 (the kidnapping for robbery instruction). …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Burton
Case #: C084180
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/04/2018

Jury instruction regarding possible inferences to be drawn from a defendant's false statements relating to the "charged" offense, does not create a presumption of guilt as to that crime. A jury found Burton guilty of two counts of first degree murder and found true special circumstance allegations and deadly weapon enhancements. One issue on appeal challenged the "false statements" jury instruction (CALCRIM No. 362) as creating an impermissible inference that Burton committed first degree murder versus a lesser offense. Held: Affirmed. CALCRIM No. 362 provides, in part, if a defendant made a knowingly false or misleading statement before trial relating…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Adams and Moreland
Case #: B257829
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/04/2018

Trial court erred in instructing the jury concerning kidnapping as defined by Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (d)(2), but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury convicted Moreland and Adams of attempted murder, robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and multiple sexual assault charges and found true various allegations under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subds. (a), (d), and (e)). On appeal, defendants argued that the court erred in instructing the jury regarding the section 667.61, subdivision (d)(2) kidnapping qualifying circumstance alleged in connection with the rape and forcible oral copulation in concert offenses. Held: Affirmed as…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Webb
Case #: D073592
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/01/2018

Although jury instruction defined second degree malice murder and first degree felony murder as different theories and stated unanimity was not required as to the theory of murder, any error in the instruction was harmless. Webb was charged with one count of murder and the jury was instructed on two theories: second degree murder based on malice aforethought and first degree felony murder (the underlying felony was kidnapping during a carjacking). The jury was also instructed that it did not need to agree on the theory of murder (CALCRIM No. 548). Webb was convicted of first degree murder.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ho
Case #: A150807
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/21/2018

In gross vehicular manslaughter prosecution, trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant's drug use and lack of sleep to prove a continuous course of conduct reflecting gross negligence. Defendant was convicted of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)) and reckless driving with great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23104, subd. (b)). On appeal she challenged the trial court's admission of evidence she had consumed drugs and alcohol and stayed up the night before the crash to prove her gross negligence. Held: Affirmed. Gross vehicular manslaughter is the driving of a vehicle in the commission of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Saavedra
Case #: F073923
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/15/2018

Jury instruction providing that consent of a minor was not a defense to the "force" element of lewd acts on a child under age 14 was correct. Defendant was convicted of a number of sex offenses against several minors. One issue on appeal challenged a portion of an instruction (CALCRIM No. 1111) providing it is not a defense that the child may have consented to the act. Held: Affirmed. Defendant argued that at the time he allegedly committed the offenses, consent was a defense to the force or duress element of lewd acts on a child under 14 years (Pen.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Shields
Case #: A149037
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 05/30/2018

Penal Code section 236.1, subdivision (c) does not violate due process by authorizing a conviction for human trafficking of a minor under the attempt prong of the statute without requiring proof that the defendant knew the victim was a minor. A detective created a fake Facebook account for a fictional 17-year-old prostitute and contacted Shields. His communications with the detective led to his arrest and conviction by a jury of human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)(1)), pandering by encouraging another person to become a prostitute (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(2)), and attempted pimping of…

View Full Summary