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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Because nothing in the record establishes that the personal weapon use enhancements were actually based on a valid ground, because the prosecution presented its case to the jury on the legally incorrect theory, and because nothing in other properly given instructions corrected the mistake about the law, a reversal of the enhancements is required. (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 63-71; People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1125-1126, 1128.) F. The Impact Of The Instructional Errors Was Exacerbated By The Trial Court's Instruction That The Jury Was Required To Use Verdict Forms That Failed To Reflect The Legally Available Options And By The Fact That The Language Set Forth In The Verdicts Conformed To The Legally Incorrect Theory Set Forth In The Court's Instruction Appellant has previously discussed the deficiencies in the language of the verdict form (Ante, at pp. 5-7, AOB at pp. 33-34), and the fact that the verdict form led to an improper finding ofpersonal use of the firearm on the part of both defendants. Respondent acknowledges the verdict forms were "phrased to indicate each appellant personally discharged a firearm" (RB 190), but contends the defects in the verdicts forms were harmless because the prosecutor argued the jury could find the enhancement true on fmding "each appellant was a principal in the commission ofthe murders." (RB 190.) What the prosecutor actually told the jury was a little different than respondent's representation. The prosecutor told the jury: Now, this [proof of the gang enhancement allegation] is also important for another reason. The last allegation. Penal Code section 12022.53 (d). This is the gun allegation. That gun allegation requires that I prove that a defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm that proximately caused someone's death. Obviously, it proximately caused someone's death. Renesha and Edward. You know this was intentional. This wasn't an accident. 72
Then we have the words "personal use." I told you, I don't know how long ago it was now I've been going on, that I did not prove to you which ofthe two defendants personally used a gun. So you're going to say, "I'm going to find that allegation not true, because Mr. Millington [the prosecutor] did not prove who personally shot the gun." But if you look in that instruction, I think it's 17.19, there's a paragraph that is important. It's towards the bottom. What it says is that gang members are vicariously liable. They are all liable for that personal use if that gun has been intentionally discharged and proximately caused death and there is a gang allegation that has been pled and proven. I've told you I pled and proved that, because I proved that Dominic Martinez, Ruben Figueroa - we had Julie Rodriguez. So that gang allegation is proven. Because of that gang allegation, they are both liable for that personal use of the gun. So I don't want that word "personal" to throw you off. When you go back there and it says, "We, the jury, find the allegation that the defendants personally, intentionally used a firearm ..." dab, dab, dab, ''to be true or not true," please circle the true. The reason being is because the law says that they are both liable ifit's a gang allegation proven. (14RT 3222-3223; AOB 57-58.) In short, and contrary to respondent's representation, the prosecutor expressly told the jury that they could find both defendants liable for the "personal" use of the gun because both were proved to be gang members. The prosecutor never informed the jurors that they could find both defendants vicariously liable ifboth were found to be principals. Respondent also argues that because the evidence was "overwhelming," "the wording of the verdict forms was immaterial since the verdicts unmistakably signaled the jury's intention to find both appellants liable for the gun use." (RB at p. 190.) This is a curious argument to make about the weight of the evidence in this case in which the trial prosecutor repeatedly conceded he had failed to prove the identity of the shooter. Respondent's related contention that the incorrect wording of the verdict forms is immaterial because the jury's findings reveal the 73
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: 192-193), but fails to explain how
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 and 102: itself to appellant would be improp
Page 103 and 104: B. The Court Erred In Refusing The
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?