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

IV
IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF CALJIC NO. 8.80.1,
THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY
ON THE MENTAL STATE REQUIRED FORACCOMPLICE
LIABILITY WHEN A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS
CHARGED. THE ERROR PERMITTED THE JURY TO
FIND THE MULTIPLE MURDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE
TO BE TRUE UNDER A THEORY THAT WAS NOT
LEGALLY APPLICABLE TO TIDS CASE, IN VIOLATION
OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS AND HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
TO A JURY TRIAL.
A. Introduction
As explained in Appellant's Opening Brief (AOB p. 84), the jury finding
that the multiple murder special circumstance allegation was true was based upon
a version of CALnC No. 8.80.1 that incorrectly stated the law regarding
accomplice intent and allowed the jury to apply the special circumstance to aiders
and abettors without the required intent to kill.
The pattern instruction contains different sections that apply to different
special circumstances, and provisions that are not applicable to the special
circumstance involved in a particular case are supposed to be redacted. However,
the court failed to properly redact the instruction in this case. As a result, the
instruction incorrectly informed the jury that the special circumstance could be
found to be true ifthe jury believed appellant was a major participant in the crime
and acted with reckless indifference, a provision that is only applicable to felony
murder cases and not to the multiple murder special circumstance alleged in this
case.
As given, CALnC 8.80.1 instructed the jury that if it was unable to decide
whether the defendant was the actual killer or an aider and abettor, it could not
fmd the special circumstance to be true unless it was satisfied beyond a reasonable
53