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

shot Fuller and Robinson, and that Nunez was in his house at the time 6 . (RB at p.
178., referring to 8RT 1707; 7RT 1615-1622; 8RT 1626-1628, 1631, 1699-1711,
1747-1749.) However, it is known that appellant was not alone in the car. If
respondent is contending this statement ofappellant's is the accurate version ofthe
events, it clears Nunez of any culpability, a result with respondent would
obviously dispute. Thus, this is undeniably an example of appellant exaggerating
his role in the offense. In short, once again, the jury could accept this statement as
proof that appellant was the actual shooter, but it is not necessary that the jury
reach this decision.
Fourth, as appellant has argued previously, because the prosecution's
theory at trial was that it had not proven who acted as the shooter, respondent must
be estopped from arguing on appeal that the evidence necessarily established the
fact that both appellant and Nunez were the shooters. (Ante, at pp. 7-9)
Nor does the other evidence cited by respondent prove appellant was the
shooter or that appellant had the requisite intent.
For example, respondent argues that the day after the murders appellant
fled from the car where the murder weapon was found, and claims that this is
evidence of appellant's supposed intent to kill. (RB at p. 179.) However, while
this evidence might logically create an inference that appellant was involved in
some crime which might prompt a gang member to flee from the police, it is
hardly conclusive evidence as to either appellant's specific role in the crime or his
intent on the night ofthe crime. Evidence that appellant fled the car the day after
the crime is not evidence that he was in the car on the night ofthe crime. It must
also be remembered that when the police stopped the car and found the weapon,
Nunez was the driver of the car, appellant and another person were the two
6 This is based on a statement from the interrogation of Contreras by Neff and
Millington on February 2, 1999. After Conteras denied making the statement at
trial, he was impeached with the tape of that interrogation. (8RT 1626-1628,
1707, 1747, Exhibits 39 and 45.)
59