Category Archives: Jury trial

Appellate Principles, Jury trial

Case: 000118

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The judgment must be reversed because the trial court deprived the defendant of his statutory rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 when it failed to sustain defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to two prospective jurors. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new trial.

First Holding:

At its core, Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 precludes either party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups.

Once the objection is made, the trial court must evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. It must consider only the reasons actually given and not speculate on, or assume the existence of, other possible justifications for the use of the peremptory challenge. If the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the objection shall be sustained.

The court need not find purposeful discrimination to sustain the objection. The court shall explain the reasons for its ruling on the record.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(d)(1)

Second Holding:

The statute acknowledges that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, has resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California. It defines ‘unconscious bias’ to include both implicit and institutional biases.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(d)(2)(C)

Third Holding:

A peremptory challenge for any of certain enumerated reasons is presumed to be invalid unless the party exercising the peremptory challenge can show by clear and convincing evidence that an objectively reasonable person would view the rationale as unrelated to a prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, and that the reasons articulated bear on the prospective juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e)

Fourth Holding:

The term “clear and convincing” refers to the degree of certainty the factfinder must have in determining whether the reasons given for the exercise of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to the prospective juror’s cognizable group membership, bearing in mind conscious and unconscious bias. To determine that a presumption of invalidity has been overcome, the factfinder shall determine that it is highly probable that the reasons given for the exercise of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to conscious or unconscious bias and are instead specific to the juror and bear on that juror’s ability to be fair and impartial in the case.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(f)

Fifth Holding:

Section 231.7(g) provides a list of reasons for peremptory challenges that have historically been associated with improper discrimination.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(g)(1)(A) and (B)

Sixth Holding:

he denial of an objection made under section 231.7 shall be reviewed by the appellate court de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence.

The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court any findings, including findings of a prospective juror’s demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the record. The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually given under subdivision (c) and shall not speculate as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either the party’s use of the peremptory challenge or the party’s failure to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in the trial court.

Should the appellate court determine that the objection was erroneously denied, that error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(j)

Seventh Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The opinion examined the details of the voir dire and procedures followed, and cited several published opinions as examples of resolutions of the problem. Rather than write a full tome, I have chosen simply to list the published cases, which you may want to read if you have a similar issue in your case(s).]

Authority:

People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 892 [the role of the two-step procedure set forth in section 231.7, subdivision (g)(2) is to determine whether the presumption of invalidity has been rebutted]

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 243 [discussing racial disparities in charging decisions]

People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 364 [the high court has identified as structural error constitutional violations such as racial discrimination in jury selection]

People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478 [certain structural errors require reversal notwithstanding the strength of evidence in a particular case]

Eighth Holding:

[GARY NOTE: Amicus curiae filed a brief that, in essence, challenged the legality of section 231.7, an issue not raised by either party in the appeal.] The second issue regarding the Legislature’s ability to require reversal was not raised by either party, either before the trial court or in this appeal. Amicus curiae must accept the issues made and propositions urged by the appealing parties, and any additional questions presented in a brief filed by an amicus curie will not be considered.

Authority:

People v. Hannon (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 94, 105

Abstracts and Minutes, Jury trial, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case: 000111

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We affirm the judgment of conviction as to defendant A. We reverse defendant B’s count 1 felony murder conviction, and otherwise affirm his judgment. The People concede both abstracts of judgment must be amended; we agree and remand with directions. The People concede and we agree the abstracts of judgment erroneously state that the convictions in counts 2, 4, and 6 are for first degree robbery. Both defendants were charged with second degree robbery, and the juries were instructed only on that theory. There are several other errors in the abstracts of judgment that must be corrected.

First Holding:

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 302

People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60

Second Holding:

Defendant A [the actual killer] contends there was no evidence he aided and abetted Defendant B in the count 6 robbery and count 7 assault. A person who aids and abets a crime is guilty of that crime even if someone else committed some or all of the criminal acts. A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he or she, (i) with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, (ii) and with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating or encouraging commission of the crime, (iii) by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime. Mere presence at the scene of a crime or knowledge of, but failure to prevent the crime, are not sufficient to establish aiding and abetting its commission. However, factors which may be considered to determine aiding and abetting include presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.

Authority:

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117

People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 851

People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 409

Third Holding:

Section 189(e) provides that a participant in a specified felony is liable for murder for a death during the commission of the offense only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, or assisted the actual killer. (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

PEN 189(e)

Fourth Holding:

There are several factors courts should consider in determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life: What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used? Reckless indifference and the element of major participant significantly overlap, for the greater the defendant’s participation in the felony murder, the more likely that he acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Authority:

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615

Fifth Holding:

Defendant B was not the actual killer, but was convicted on the basis of felony murder (item (3)). We need not decide whether, under the circumstances of this case, defendant was a major participant because we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support that he exhibited reckless indifference to human life. The actus reus for the felony-murder aider and abettor special circumstance requires more than simply being an aider and abettor of the underlying felony under section 31. The special circumstance requires that the defendant be a major participant in the underlying felony.

Likewise, the mens rea requirement for the felony-murder aider and abettor special circumstance is different from that required for first degree felony murder. The special circumstance requires that the defendant have reckless indifference to human life. A defendant’s knowing participation in a robbery with others who are armed is insufficient, without more, to prove the defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. Awareness of no more than the foreseeable risk of death inherent in any armed crime is insufficient, because a defendant must knowingly create a grave risk of death through the defendant’s own actions. Reckless indifference encompasses a willingness to kill (or to assist another in killing) to achieve a distinct aim, even if the defendant does not specifically desire that death as the outcome of the defendant’s actions. Reckless indifference to human life has both a subjective and an objective element.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 615-617

People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 794, 807-810

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 706

In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677

Sixth Holding:

In committing the count 1 felony robbery, Defendant A entered the convenience store alone, and therefore Defendant B had no opportunity to restrain him, or to aid the victim. The evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant B was aware, when they left the third convenience store, that Defendant A had killed the victim. This factor weighs against a finding of reckless indifference. Defendant B had no meaningful opportunity to aid the victim before the shooting.

However contemptible the court may find a defendant’s conduct following a killing, the governing standard is not satisfied by evidence that the defendant was generally indifferent to the fact that someone has been killed. It requires evidence that, at the time of the shooting, the defendant acted with indifference toward the grave risk that someone could be killed. Though the former may be evidence of the latter, it is insufficient, standing alone, to support murder liability. While it is true a defendant’s willingness to engage in an armed robbery with individuals known to him to use lethal force may give rise to the inference that the defendant disregarded a grave risk of death, no evidence was presented at trial that Defendant A was known to have a propensity for violence, let alone evidence indicating that Defendant B was aware of such a propensity.

Authority:

People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 894-895

Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 157

Seventh Holding:

The abstracts of judgment contain several errors that must be corrected. The abstracts of judgment erroneously state that the convictions in three counts are for first degree robbery. The verdict forms do not specify the degree of the robberies. But under California law, upon the failure of the jury or the court to determine the degree of the crime of which the defendant is guilty, it shall be deemed to be of the lesser degree. Therefore, we conclude that the robberies in the three counts are in the second degree.

The jury convicted both defendants of being a felon in possession of a firearm and not a “convicted felon and narcotic” as stated in the abstracts of judgment. As to Defendant A, the abstract of judgment shows the court imposed a consecutive full term of three years for one of the counts. However, the court orally stated, “Under [that count], the court is going to use one-third the midterm for that charge of one year, and that will run consecutive to the determinate terms under [two other counts].” Given this discrepancy, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls.

Authority:

PEN 1157

People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1222, fn. 14.

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury trial, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000094

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the defendant’s convictions for kidnapping to commit robbery in counts 11 and 12, and we reduce the convictions in counts 11 and 12 to the lesser included offense of felony false imprisonment by violence or menace.   We remand the matter for a full resentencing as to all counts, so that the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

First Holding:

Kidnapping for robbery requires a simple kidnapping in which the movement increased the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in the intended underlying offense. The increased risk may be of either physical or psychological harm.

Authority:

PEN 209(b)(1)–(2)

People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1, 11–12

People v. Waqa (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 565, 577

People v. Nguyen (2000) 22 Cal.4th 872, 886

Second Holding:

In a simple kidnapping or kidnap for robbery involving an associated crime, the jury should be instructed to consider whether the distance a victim was moved was incidental to the commission of that crime in determining the movement’s substantiality. Such consideration is relevant to determining whether more than one crime has been committed, and is amply supported by the case law. An associated crime for the purposes of simple kidnapping is any criminal act the defendant intends to commit where, in the course of its commission, the defendant also moves a victim by force or fear against his or her will.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 644, 671

Third Holding:

Whether movement is incidental and whether it increased the risk to the victim are not mutually exclusive, but interrelated.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 470

Fourth Holding:

If in the course of a robbery a defendant does no more than move his victim around inside the premises in which he finds him or her—whether it be a residence or a place of business or other enclosure—his conduct generally will not be deemed to constitute the offense proscribed by section 209. Indeed, most movements that have been found to be insubstantial or merely incidental to the underlying crime have been within a building, or within the premises of a business. It is not unusual in the course of a robbery for a robber to move the victims to one spot to make it easier for the robber to search for valuables and flee undetected. Although measured distance is relevant, no minimum distance is required to satisfy the asportation requirement so long as the movement is substantial. Each case must be considered in the context of the totality of its circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Daniels (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1119, 1140

People v. Power (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 126, 139

People v. Leavel (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 823, 834

People v. Dominguez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1141, 1152

People v. Corcoran (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 272, 279 [holding that movement of 10 feet was a substantial distance in connection with a robbery]

Fifth Holding:

In general, to prove the crime of simple kidnapping, the prosecution must prove three elements: (1) a person was unlawfully moved by the use of physical force or fear; (2) the movement was without the person’s consent; and (3) the movement of the person was for a substantial distance.

Authority:

People v. Hartland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 71, 77

Sixth Holding:

Where, as here, the appellate court finds there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment of conviction to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense. We remand the matter for a full resentencing as to all counts, so that the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

PEN 1181, subd. 6

PEN 1260

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

People v. Ellis (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 590, 601

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Seventh Holding:

Our Supreme Court has long recognized that under sections 1181, subdivision 6, and 1260, an appellate court that finds that insufficient evidence supports the conviction for a greater offense may, in lieu of granting a new trial, modify the judgment of conviction to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 671

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Evidence, Jury trial, Racial Justice Act, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000081

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

[Gary note: Grabba cuppa. This case rivaled Fort Knox for gold.]

We agree with the parties that the gang offense must be reversed and the gang-related allegations must be vacated, and that the sentences on several witness dissuasion counts may be readdressed upon remand. We further agree with the defendant that the prosecution should not have been permitted to play and introduce two rap music videos under Evidence Code section 352, although we conclude that the error was harmless given our reversal of the gang offense and the vacation of the gang-related allegations. In addition, we find that the defendant has established a prima facie case that the prosecution violated the California Racial Justice Act by playing and using the rap music videos at trial, and we remand this matter to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if a violation of the California Racial Justice Act has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

First Holding:

AB 333 made the following changes: First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Second Holding:

Second, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Third Holding:

AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fourth Holding:

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fifth Holding:

We determine whether substantial evidence supports a jury’s finding by inquiring whether evidence was presented from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecution sustained its burden of proof. Although we assess whether the evidence is inherently credible and of solid value, we must also view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and presume the existence of every fact that the jury could reasonably have deduced from that evidence.

Authority:

People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 488

Sixth Holding:

Speculative testimony by a gang expert does not constitute substantial evidence to support a gang enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Soriano (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 278, 288

People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 964 [Where there is no proof the defendant acted in association with or at the direction of the gang, the prosecution cannot rely on the joint nature of the offense to establish either the requisite benefit to the gang or the specific intent to promote the criminal activity of gang members]

Seventh Holding:

We also will vacate the gang-related firearm allegations under section 12022.53(b) and (e)(1).

Authority:

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746 [reversing affirmance of firearm enhancement because the firearm enhancement alleged under section 12022.53(e)(1) is contingent on a true finding on the gang enhancement under section 186.22]

People v. Campbell (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 350, 376 [the amendments AB 333 made apply retroactively to the gang-related gun use enhancement under section 12022.53(e)]

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the conviction on the gang offense and the true findings on the gang-related allegations under the law at the time of the defendant’s trial, the defendant may not be retried concerning these matters.

Authority:

United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131

Ninth Holding:

The California Supreme Court recently held that Evidence Code section 352.2 [rap video evidence] does not apply retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal. Evidence Code section 352.2 has at best an attenuated and inconsistent connection to reduced punishment and there is good reason why the Legislature might not have intended for its approach toward the admissibility of creative expressions to apply retroactively, and thus the inference of retroactive application does not attach to the statute. However, the court noted that Evidence Code section 352.2, by providing additional direction for evaluating the admissibility of creative expressions, sets forth several factors that trial courts already might have folded into an evaluation of whether this type of material was admissible under Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101.

Authority:

People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 692, 693

Tenth Holding:

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Aguirre dictates that Evidence Code section 352.2 does not apply retroactively to the defendant’s case, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by permitting the prosecutor to play the videos in his opening statement and by admitting evidence of the videos. A Racial Justice Act [RJA] violation occurs when an attorney in the case exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, among other circumstances. A central premise of the RJA is that bias can be unconscious and implied as well as conscious and express.

Authority:

PEN 745

Bonds v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 821, 824

Eleventh Holding:

To forestall the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of his’s RJA claim. This approach is particularly appropriate here, where we can discern no rational tactical reason for the defendant’s counsel not raising the RJA issue when counsel already filed a motion for a new trial concerning the playing and use of the rap music videos.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [reviewing court may reach forfeited claim where ineffective assistance of counsel claimed]

People v. Quintero (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1074 [addressing merits of forfeited RJA claim because defendant alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object]

Twelfth Holding:

The fact that the prosecutor did not utter the words in the video does not foreclose an RJA claim. The RJA expressly includes in its description of qualifying acts an attorney using racially discriminatory language, but it also includes an attorney otherwise exhibiting bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

Authority:

PEN 745(a)(2)

Thirteenth Holding:

The RJA does not define racial bias or animus, but it specifies that the moving party is not required to prove intentional discrimination. Indeed, the statement of Legislative intent behind the RJA’s enactment states that the act was aimed at addressing the use of racially incendiary or racially coded language, images, and racial stereotypes in criminal trials. Based on the lack of probative value the videos had, the danger of racial bias that the “A Day in the Life” video particularly presented, and the manner in which the prosecutor used the videos at trial, we conclude that the defendant has satisfied his initial minimal burden to produce facts that, if true, establish that there is more than a mere possibility of an RJA violation.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(2)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 656

Fourteenth Holding:

Challenges for cause are constitutionally guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Our state Constitution provides the same general right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. In California, criminal defendants are allowed an unlimited number of challenges to prospective jurors for cause, which the defendants must use before exercising any peremptory challenges.

Authority:

People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 916

Fifteenth Holding:

On forfeiture of jury challenge because defendant still had peremptory challenges available, the defense was afforded 30 total peremptory challenges, with 20 of the challenges being joint challenges and the remaining 10 split between the two defendants. The defense had peremptory challenges available when it accepted the jury as seated. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected requests to abandon the forfeiture rule concerning denials of juror challenges for cause in analogous situations where the three requirements to preserve the issue for appeal were not met.

Authority:

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 143

People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 425-426

People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1209-1210

People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 61

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 45-46

People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 186

People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1290

Sixteenth Holding:

Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome. In applying this statute we evaluate the risk of undue prejudice, that is, evidence that uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues, not the prejudice that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.

Authority:

People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724

People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 148

Seventeenth Holding:

A trial court’s discretionary ruling under Evidence Code section 352 will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion or consumption of time.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372-373

People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124

Eighteenth Holding:

The weighing process under Evidence Code section 352 depends upon the trial court’s consideration of the unique facts and issues of each case, rather than upon the mechanical application of automatic rules. The record must affirmatively show that the trial judge did in fact weigh prejudice against probative value, but no more is required. We review the trial court’s exercise of discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse and will not disturb the court’s ruling except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Authority:

People v. Megown (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 157, 164

Nineteenth Holding:

A trial court’s admission of evidence, including gang testimony, is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Coneal (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 951, 964

Twentieth Holding:

When evaluating the admission of rap music, courts have recognized it has minimal probative value to the extent that it depends on construing the lyrics as literal statements of fact or intent without a persuasive basis to do so. We have also held that the relevance of rap lyrics is further diminished when they lack foundation. These foundational components include whether the defendant authored the lyrics. Thus, absent some meaningful method to determine which lyrics represent real versus made up events, or some persuasive basis to construe specific lyrics literally, the probative value of lyrics as evidence of their literal truth is minimal.

Authority:

People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 477, 478

Twenty-first Holding:

We do not mean to suggest that lyrics are never probative of their literal truth. For example, where lyrics are written within a reasonable period of time before or after the charged crime and bear a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime, their probative value as a statement of fact is increased. It may also be that lyrics with sufficient corroboration from other evidence will have increased probative value. However, corroborating evidence may also render the lyrics cumulative.

Authority:

People v. Coneal (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 951, 96

Twenty-second Holding:

Section 29800(a)(1) states that any person who has been convicted of a felony, who has been convicted of an enumerated offense, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. As relevant here: This offense has three elements: (1) the defendant possessed a firearm, (2) the defendant knew that he possessed the firearm, and (3) the defendant had previously been convicted of a felony.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939, 958

Twenty-third Holding:

Where a defendant will stipulate to ex-felon status, evidence of the nature of his prior convictions still may and should be withheld from the jury, since such evidence is irrelevant to the ex-felon issue. Thus, to prove the third element of a violation of section 29800(a)(1), one of two alternatives may be used: (1) The prosecution can prove the conviction in open court, and that proof can include both the fact that the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony offense as well as the nature of the felony involved; or (2) the defendant can stipulate to having a felony conviction and thereby keep from the jury the nature of the particular felony. When the defendant stipulates to a prior conviction, “the court ‘sanitizes’ the prior by telling the jury that the defendant has a prior felony conviction, without specifying the nature of the felony committed.

Authority:

People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 173

People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 261, 262

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Jury trial, Juveniles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000033

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not obtaining defendant’s personal waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on allegations of aggravating circumstances and prior convictions under the Three Strikes law. As to the prior convictions, we find no prejudice. The error was prejudicial, however, with regard to the aggravating circumstances.

First Holding:

There is a constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A waiver of the right must be personally expressed by the defendant in open court. It must be explicit and will not be implied from the defendant’s conduct. A failure to object will not preclude his asserting on appeal his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Authority:

Section 16 of Article I of the California Constitution

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46-47

Second Holding:

A complete deprivation of a jury trial on issues of guilt is of a different magnitude than the denial of a jury determination on penalty allegations. Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error.

Authority:

Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. 212

Third Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, reversal and remand are required unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743

Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 19

Fourth Holding:

The opening brief contains a footnote in which he cursorily asserts a related claim of insufficient evidence. We exercise our discretion to disregard points raised in a footnote rather than being properly presented under a discrete heading with appropriate analysis. Footnotes are not the appropriate vehicle for stating contentions on appeal

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)

People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412, fn. 5

Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916, 947

People v. Crosswhite (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 494, 502, fn. 5

Fifth Holding:

With respect to the prior convictions, defendant’s claims are insufficiently developed and could be rejected for that reason alone.

Authority:

People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 482, fn. 2

People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150

Sixth Holding:

Outside the pronouncement of judgment, discrepancies between a minute order and the reporter’s transcript are resolved by adopting whichever should be given greater credence under the circumstances of the particular case.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 880

People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599

Seventh Holding:

There is no federal or state constitutional right to a jury trial on the fact of a prior conviction. In California, defendants have a statutory right to a jury trial on the question of whether or not the defendant has suffered the prior conviction. The requirement of an express waiver under section 16 of article I of the California Constitution] applies to the constitutional right to a jury trial, but not to jury trial rights that are established only by statute. Therefore, the statutory right to a jury trial on prior conviction allegations can be impliedly waived and forfeited.

Authority:

PEN 1025(b) and (c)

Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224

People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 125

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46

People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 737–738

People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589

Eighth Holding:

As a general rule, double jeopardy principles do not prohibit retrial following reversal on appeal for reasons other than insufficiency of the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 855

Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 728–729

Ninth Holding:

Juvenile adjudications do not, under any circumstances, qualify as convictions for purposes of section 667(a) (the enhancement for prior convictions of a serious felony when the new offense is a serious felony).

Authority:

People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 107–108

People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 798

People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10

People v. O’Neal (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1068