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

IX
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING APPELLANT
SATELE'S REQUEST TO GIVE THE JURy LIMITING
INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING EVIDENCE THAT ONLY
APPLIED TO CO-APPELLANT NUNEZ
The trial court erred in refusing appellant's request to give the jury limiting
instructions informing the jury that certain evidence only applied to co-appellant
Nunez. In particular, as detailed in Appellant's Opening Brief, the facts giving
rise to the instructions contained in CALJIC Nos. 2.04 and 2.05 related to the
testimony that Nunez tried to influence the testimony of Ruby Feliciano and
Esther Collins. Because this evidence only applied to co-appellant Nunez,
appellant requested that the jury be instructed only to consider that evidence as to
Nunez. This request was denied, and the denial was reversible error.
A. Appellant Has Not Forfeited This Claim.
Respondent again claims the constitutional aspects of this issue are
forfeited because they were not raised at trial. (RB at p. 197.) Once again,
respondent is wrong.
Under the principles discussed more fully above (ante, at pp. 21-27), this
issue is not waived. These principles include the fact that an appellate court has
inherent power to review an issue in spite of a party's failure to perfectly phrase
that issue; the fact that there is an exception to the waiver rule regarding issues
relating to the deprivation of fundamental, constitutional rights; and the fact that
there is an exception to the waiver rule that provides that an objection may be
excused when the issue involved is a pure question of law. Finally, because, as
noted above, whether the waiver rule is to be applied is largely a question of the
appellate court's discretion, this court should address the constitutional aspects of
this issue.
92