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

appellants guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (l5RT 3457­
3458; 38CT 10925-10940), the jury clearly knew that it was making a specific
'first degree' finding." (RB at p. 94.)
This is a conclusory statement that is not supported by either law or logic.
The jury is not skilled in law, and there is no reason why a lay jury would
understand the consequences of making a particular finding of fact. In any event,
the statute calls for the jury to fmd the degree of the offense. It does not call on
the jury to recite the facts. (Pen. Code, § 1157.)
"It is a cardinal rule that a court is not justified in ignoring the plain words of
a statute unless it clearly appears that the language used is contrary to what, beyond
question, was the intent of the Legislature." (Cisneros v. Vueve (1995) 37
Cal.AppAth 906, 910, citations omitted.)
Taking a somewhat different tack, respondent argues that the jury received
instructions on drive-by murder, which is a form of first degree murder. (RB at p.
94.) The problem with this contention is that this was a theory of liability for first
degree murder, but the jury did not make any finding as to whether this was the
theory it was adopting in reaching its verdict. Therefore, it cannot be said whether
or not the jury found first degree murder based on this fact.
In fact, even respondent apparently does not believe it is a foregone
conclusion that the jury concluded that this murder arose from a drive-by shooting.
In another argument, respondent claimed "....the jury could find that appellants
had enough time to fire the murder weapon from outside their car..." (RB at p.
118, italics added.) Because section 189 makes it first degree murder ifthe killing
is committed "by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle" if the
shooter was outside the car, as respondent suggests was possible, it would not
necessarily be first degree murder by reason of this theory. Therefore, while this
is a theory that the jury could have adopted, there is no indication in the form of a
specific finding that it was in fact adopted, and the facts giving rise to that theory
were not necessarily conclusively established.
80