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.<br />
BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT SUA SPONTE ON THE<br />
LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF IMPLIED MALICE<br />
MURDER OF THE SECOND DEGREE THE TRIAL<br />
COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH<br />
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, HIS SIXTH<br />
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY, AND HIS<br />
EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RELIABLE DETERMINATION<br />
OF GUILT AND PENALTY IN A CAPITAL CASE<br />
A. Introduction<br />
As explained more fully in <strong>Appellant</strong>'s Opening <strong>Brief</strong> (AOB at p. 59),<br />
appellant was charged with two counts <strong>of</strong> murder. Because several alternative<br />
theories were supported by the evidence, the court instructed the jury on three<br />
theories <strong>of</strong> murder in the first degree: I) deliberate and premeditated murder; 2)<br />
murder by the use <strong>of</strong> armor-piercing ammunition; and 3) drive-by murder. The<br />
court also instructed the jury on the lesser-included <strong>of</strong>fense <strong>of</strong> unpremeditated<br />
murder <strong>of</strong> the second degree and on the related special finding pertaining to the<br />
intentional discharge <strong>of</strong>a firearm from a vehicle.<br />
However, the court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included <strong>of</strong>fense<br />
<strong>of</strong> second degree murder resulting from the commission <strong>of</strong> an unlawful act<br />
dangerous to life; Le., implied malice murder <strong>of</strong>the second degree. (See CALJIC<br />
No. 8.31.) Because substantial evidence supported such an instruction, and<br />
because the court's error prevented the jury from considering a theory that would<br />
have resulted in a lesser degree <strong>of</strong> homicide, the court's error violated appellant's<br />
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process <strong>of</strong> law, his Sixth<br />
Amendment right to trial by jury, and his Eighth Amendment right to a reliable<br />
determination <strong>of</strong>guilt and penalty. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed.<br />
28