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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

B. The Flaw In Respondent's Contentions. Respondent does not dispute the contention that a trial court must instruct the jury that it begin its deliberations anew when a seated juror is excused and replaced by an alternate jury, nor does respondent dispute= that the court failed to do so in this case. Therefore, it is clear that the trial court committed error in its selection ofinstructions when the alternate jurors were seated. Respondent notes that in Appellant's Opening Brief appellant discussed the importance of understanding the difference between CALJIC Nos. 17.51 and 17.51.1. (AOB at p. 241.) However, rather than addressing the difference between these two instructions, respondent merely notes that this trial occurred after People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1 and People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal. 687, and therefore appellant's trial counsel had the opportunity to consider the differences between the instructions before this trial. (RB at p.214.) This argument fails to address the issues presented here. Becausethe trial court has a duty to correctly instruct the jury, whether trial counsel was diligent in reviewing instructions does not excuse the trial court's failure to fulfill its obligations. Respondent relies on People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, noting that "in Proctor, this court denied a claim that the instruction did not 'embody all elements of the instruction required by' Collins. (Proctor, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 536-537.)" (RB at p. 218.) However, respondent also quotes from Proctor, which explained that the trial court in that case instructed the jury: [It] "would be helpful and in connection with commencing your deliberations again, that you kind of start, start from scratch, so to speak, so that Mr. Rhoades has the benefit ofyour thinking...." (RB at p. 218, quoting Proctor at p. 536.) This quotation does not aid respondent and actually supports appellants' position. While the trial court in Proctor did not give the jury the exact instruction 118
appellant contends is necessary, the court did tell the jury to start over "from scratch." This court affIrmed the result after referring to this aspect of the instruction. Therefore, ifanything, Proctor stands for the proposition that the jury must be told to start deliberations anew, even if the exact wording of that instruction is not cast in stone. Telling the jury to start from scratch is the same as telling the jury to begin deliberations anew. Indeed, in many other areas the law shies away from a talismanic approach which demands that an exact phrase be recited. Rather the tendency is to allow for wording of instructions or admonitions which incorporate the essence ofthe message that must be conveyed. For example, before a suspect is questioned he must be given the admonitions set forth in Miranda 13 • However, so long as the suspect is informed of the essence of those warnings, the fact that they are not worded perfectly will not render a subsequent admission or confession a violation of Miranda so as to require its suppression. (People v. Bradford (2008) 169 Ca1.AppAth 843,846.) Likewise, instructions which convey the gist of essential principles to the jury will often suffIce, even if aspects of the instruction are debatably less than perfect. (People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Ca1.App.4th 773, 793.) Respondent argues that the trial court did instruct the jury that "[y]our function now" is to deliberate ''with'' the replacement juror, and "[e]ach of you must participate fully in the deliberations." (18RT 4470, 4491 [italics added].)" (RB at pp. 218-219.) Respondent concedes that the court did not tell the jury that it had to begin deliberations anew, but contends that this instruction was "adequate." (RB at p. 219, Italics in RB.) To the contrary, the instruction as quoted by respondent is devoid of the most crucial element required by the proper instruction-- namely, a statement directing the jury to start its deliberations anew in order to have the full and equal 13 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 119
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 and 86: 192-193), but fails to explain how
Page 87 and 88: Then we have the words "personal us
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 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?