Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
II BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT SUA SPONTE ON THE LESSER<br />
INCLUDED OFFENSE OF IMPLIED MALICE MURDER OF<br />
THE SECOND DEGREE THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED<br />
APPELLANT'S FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH<br />
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, A JURY<br />
TRIAL, AND A RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF THE PENALTY<br />
IN A CAPITAL CASE 28<br />
A. Introduction 28<br />
B. The Constitutional Issues Are Not Waived. 29<br />
C. The Doctrine OfInvited Error Does Not Apply 29<br />
D. Substantial Evidence Supports The Need For CALJIC No. 8.31. 31<br />
E. The Error Was Not Harmless 36<br />
F. Conclusion 37<br />
III THE COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL<br />
RIGHTS WHEN IT OMITTED ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FROM<br />
THE GANG ENHANCEMENT INSTRUCTION, AND THE<br />
ENHANCEMENT MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED 38<br />
A. Introduction 38<br />
B. The Jury Was Not "Adequately" Instructed 38<br />
C. Chapman's Harmless-Error Standard Is the Governing Standard <strong>of</strong><br />
Review 43<br />
D. The Instructional Error Was Not Harmless Beyond A Reasonable Doubt 45<br />
E. The Consequences OfThe Instructional Error Reached Beyond The<br />
Gang Benefit Enhancement 47<br />
1. <strong>Appellant</strong>s Did Not Forfeit Their Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, And Fourteenth<br />
Amendment Claims 47<br />
11