Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VIII THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR AN INSTRUCTION INFORMING THE JURY THAT BEING IN THE COMPANY OF SOMEONE WHO HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME WAS AN INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR PROVING APPELLANT'S GUILT The trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for an instruction infonning the jury that being in the company ofsomeone who had committed the crime was an insufficient basis for proving guilt as an aider and abettor. This error had the effect of depriving appellant of the right to due process of law and the Eighth Amendment right to a reliable detennination of the facts in a capital case, thereby requiring a reversal ofthe judgment and death penalty verdict. A. This Claim Is Not Waived Respondent claims the constitutional aspects of this issue are forfeited because these claims were not raised at trial. (RB at p. 197.) Respondent is wrong. Under the principles discussed more fully above (ante, at pp. 21-27), this issue is not waived. These principles include the fact that an appellate court has inherent power to review an issue in spite of a party's failure to perfectly phrase that issue; the fact that there is an exception to the waiver rule regarding issues relating to the deprivation of fundamental, constitutional rights; and the fact that there is an exception to the waiver rule that provides that an objection may be excused when the issue involved is a pure question of law. Finally, because, as noted above, whether the waiver rule is to be applied is largely a question of the appellate court's discretion, this court should address the constitutional aspects of this issue. 88
B. The Court Erred In Refusing The Requested Instruction Respondent argues that it was not error for the trial court to refuse the requested instruction because "[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to give amplifying or pinpoint instructions." (RT at p. 197.) Respondent is wrong. It is true that a trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to give pinpoint instructions. However, that is not the question presented here. Rather, this case deals with the duty ofa court to give pinpoint instructions on request. The duty to give requested instructions is different from the duty to give instructions sua sponte. As explained in Appellant's Opening Brief (AOB at pp. 166-167), a defendant is entitled to a pinpoint instruction upon request. (See also People v. Saille (1991) 54 Ca1.3d 1103, 1119; People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 1009, 1019.) Respondent's failure to address the duty of a trial court to give pinpoint instructions when requested to do so should be regarded as a concession as to that issue. (People v. Adams, supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 970,992.) Respondent further contends that the trial court did not err in refusing the requested instruction because the principle of law reflected in the requested instruction was similar to the language contained in CALJIC No. 3.01 and, respondent claims, was sufficient to inform the jury of the principle contained in the requested instruction. (RB at pp. 197-198.) However, CALJIC No. 3.01 informed the jury that merely being present at the scene of the crime is not sufficient for aiding and abetting liability. Nothing in the instruction even began to address the question of whether being in the company ofNunez and Caballero might be sufficient for such an inference. Moreover, because of the testimony of the gang expert and the nature of gang cases, appellant's association with Nunez and Caballero would be an incriminating fact in itself beyond mere presence. Julie Rodriguez, the prosecution's gang expert explained that when gang members go on a shooting mission there are three roles: a driver, a lookout, and a shooter. Combined with the evidence presented as to how gangs gain status and operate, the jury could 89
Page 2 and 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
Page 4 and 5:
2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
Page 6 and 7:
VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
Page 8 and 9:
C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
Page 10 and 11:
XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
Page 12 and 13:
Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
Page 14 and 15:
People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
Page 16 and 17:
People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
Page 18 and 19:
CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
Page 20 and 21:
ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
Page 22 and 23:
the facts indicate that only one de
Page 24 and 25:
form finding "personal use" to have
Page 26 and 27:
57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
Page 28 and 29:
the weapon. Without again recountin
Page 30 and 31:
Respondent notes that between the m
Page 32 and 33:
In another apparent attempt to just
Page 34 and 35:
appellant has repeatedly said, the
Page 37 and 38:
not present them to the trial court
Page 39 and 40:
In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
Page 41 and 42:
Finally, it must be noted that the
Page 43 and 44:
B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
Page 45 and 46:
turn relied on the language from Wi
Page 47 and 48:
Indeed, in this case the instructio
Page 49 and 50:
as the prosecution's first-degree t
Page 51 and 52: F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
Page 53 and 54: As appellant explained in the openi
Page 55 and 56: in the manner suggested by responde
Page 57 and 58: Furthennore, it is well established
Page 59 and 60: Appellant has explained above and i
Page 61 and 62: Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
Page 63 and 64: 3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
Page 65 and 66: In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
Page 67 and 68: IV IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF
Page 69 and 70: People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Ca1.3d
Page 71 and 72: have been unreasonable for the jury
Page 73 and 74: shot Fuller and Robinson, and that
Page 75 and 76: find 'intent to kill'" on the basis
Page 77 and 78: THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION A
Page 79 and 80: Robinson's wounds indicated the sho
Page 81 and 82: caused great bodily injury or death
Page 83 and 84: use enhancement, the statutory lang
Page 85 and 86: 192-193), but fails to explain how
Page 87 and 88: Then we have the words "personal us
Page 89 and 90: trial and had therefore forfeited t
Page 91 and 92: merits of appellant's claim. (AOB a
Page 93 and 94: jury trial. (People v. Gottman (197
Page 95 and 96: Respondent argues that another theo
Page 97 and 98: needs to rely on the penalty verdic
Page 99 and 100: may not cross-examine a witness upo
Page 101: itself to appellant would be improp
Page 105 and 106: egarding the intent ofthe non-shoot
Page 107 and 108: B. Respondent's Arguments Are Mispl
Page 109 and 110: ut is only being allowed for use ag
Page 111 and 112: x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTI
Page 113 and 114: XI THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT IN A
Page 115 and 116: "guarantee." Appellant is not proce
Page 117 and 118: v. Berryman (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1048,
Page 119 and 120: Contreras. Viewed in this context,
Page 122 and 123: overwhelmingly showed that only one
Page 124 and 125: XII GUILT AND PENALTY PHASE VERDICT
Page 126 and 127: Where Juror No. 2211 is concerned,
Page 128 and 129: The jury in Cruz was given a versio
Page 130 and 131: PENALTY PHASE ISSUES XIV THE TRIAL
Page 132 and 133: B. The Flaw In Respondent's Content
Page 134 and 135: participation ofall jurors. Contrar
Page 136 and 137: confuse[d]" (Harris) is no more tha
Page 138: It is submitted that these instruct
Page 141 and 142: inherent power to review an issue i
Page 143 and 144: prospective jurors who were found t
Page 145 and 146: (Id at p. 821.) This court has char
Page 147 and 148: church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.)
Page 149 and 150: (18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18
Page 151 and 152: had in fact reached an impasse at t
Page 153 and 154:
There is an impasse. It is hung. Bu
Page 155 and 156:
establishes, for example, that, whe
Page 157 and 158:
and Code of Civil Procedure 233, wh
Page 159 and 160:
a demonstrable reality. The court a
Page 161 and 162:
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Rule 8.63
show all

Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?