Error and/or relief
The court erred in by using the wrong standard in ruling on the defendant’s motion to modify the verdict pursuant to Penal Code section 1181(6). We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for reconsideration of appellant’s motion to modify the verdict.
First Holding:
The defendant’s claim that the prosecution engaged in misconduct during oral argument is forfeited because there was no objection. Generally, a defendant must make a timely objection and a request that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety, unless the objection would have been futile or the error could not be cured by an admonition.
Authority:
People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 705
Second Holding:
It is true that a prosecutor may violate a defendant’s constitutional rights when the prosecutor engages in a course of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. The claimed misconduct here was not so egregious as to result in a denial of due process.
Authority:
Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1, 7 [multiple misrepresentations of fact]
Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [withholding of exculpatory evidence]
Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [the prosecutor’s argument prejudices a specific right, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination]
Third Holding:
After the jury returned the verdict, the defendant brought a motion to modify the verdict pursuant to section 1181(6) on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for first degree murder. The defendant asked the court to review and reweigh the evidence presented at trial and modify the verdict to a finding of second-degree murder or manslaughter. The court applied the wrong standard in considering and denying the motion. It stated that had the judge been on the jury, he likely wuold have had a different decision, but he was not the jury, and he was required to honor the sanctity of the jury.
This is an inaccurate statement of the correct standard. The court conflated a sufficiency of the evidence review, in which the verdict is upheld if there is any evidence to support it, with its duty to independently determine whether the element of premeditation had been proven. Under the correct standard, in considering a motion under section 1181(6), the trial judge independently weighs the evidence, rather than applying the substantial evidence rule and determining legal sufficiency.
Authority:
People v. Veitch (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 460, 468
Fourth Holding:
Section 1181(6) provides in relevant part that the court may grant a new trial when the verdict or finding is contrary to law or evidence, but if the evidence shows the defendant to be not guilty of the degree of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, the court may modify the verdict or judgment accordingly without granting or ordering a new trial.
Authority:
PEN 1181(6)
Fifth Holding:
In considering a motion under section 1181(6), the court extends no evidentiary deference in ruling on the motion. Instead, it independently examines all the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a 13th juror. It is the trial court’s function to determine independently whether it is satisfied that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict.
Authority:
Porter v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 125, 133
People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1254