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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the facts indicate that only one defendant acted in that role. It is the possibility of inconsistent factual theories that was the evil in In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Ca1.4th 140, and the argument appellant has presented is that the findings that both defendants personally fired the weapon violates the principles discussed in Sakarias. However, in spite of the fact that this is the essence of claim asserted here, respondent does not address Sakarias at all in discussing this issue. (Respondent only discusses Sakarias in a subsequent section of Respondent's Brief dealing with the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. (See RB at pp.142-145.) However, the Sakarias analysis is critical to an understanding ofthis issue. Sakarias held it was contrary to principles of fundamental fairness for the prosecution to attribute to two defendants, in separate trials, a criminal act only one defendant could have committed. (Sakarias, supra, 35 Ca1.4th at pp. 155-156, italics added in RB at pp. 142-143.) Appellant's point is that ifonly one defendant could have committed the act in question the fundamental unfairness ofattributing that act to two defendants is the same whether the prosecution does so in one trial or two. While Sakarias discussed the result in the context oftwo trials, there is no reason in law or policy to limit the principles underlying Sakarias to a two-trial situation. Sakarias is based on the premise that the prosecutor's use of inconsistent factual theories "surely does not inspire public confidence in our criminal justice system." (Id. at p. 159, quoting Thompson v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1997) 120 F.3d 1045, 1072 (dis. opn. of Kozinski, J).) Appellant submits that the foregoing rationale applies with equal force whether the two inconsistent results are obtained in two trials or in one trial as a result ofa poorly worded verdict form. For the foregoing reasons, respondent's contentions are premised on misunderstanding ofthe issue and, accordingly, are flawed. 4
c. Respondent Fails To Understand The Origins Of The Error. In addition to failing to understand nature of the error, respondent has misunderstood how the error occurred. This latter failure is evident from the fact that respondent at no point discusses whether the forms were inaccurately phrased in such a manner that would cause the jury to make a fmding of "personal use" even though the jurors did not really know which defendant actually fired the gun. Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) allows for the imposition of a sentence enhancement on a defendant who personally uses a gun. Subdivision (e)(l) ofthat section allows for the enhancement to also be imposed vicariously on one who is a principal in the crime ifthat person also violated section 186.22(b)(I) by participating in activity for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Thus, if a defendant violates section 186.22, that defendant is vicariously liable for the 12022.53(d) enhancement if another principal uses a firearm regardless of the defendant's personal use of the weapon. Therefore, under the 186.22 scenario, a jury can find that one of two defendants personally fired a weapon, and that the other defendant is vicariously liable for the first defendant's act. At trial, the prosecution relied solely on this theory of vicarious liability as to the weapon enhancement because it was not proven who personally used the weapon. Indeed, the prosecutor did not argue that both defendants fired the weapon and even conceded that he did not prove appellant fired the weapon, stating that he did not have to prove appellant fired the weapon for the enhancement to be found true. The prosecutor told the jury that because of the gang allegation the jurors should not be "thrown off' by the word "personal." (14RT 3214, 14RT 3222-3223.) In short, the argument of the prosecutor was that the jury did not have to find that a particular defendant personally used the rifle for the enhancement to apply to both defendants. The prosecutor argued that because the enhancement would attach vicariously regardless of which defendant had actually fired the weapon, the allegation had been proven, and the jury should mark the appropriate 5
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 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 132 and 133:
B. The Flaw In Respondent's Content
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?