Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ... Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
the weapon. Without again recounting that evidence in full (AOB pp. 32-33, 38 39), the most telling evidence as to this issue is the limited amount of time involved in this shooting. Because there was only one rifle used, the speed with which the shots were fired clearly indicated that one person fired the shots. The evidence that gives the clearest picture as to the timing of the shots came from the testimony of Bertha Jacque who looked out of her bedroom window, saw Renesha's car, and then started walking to her bed. Before she reached the bed she heard the gunshots and "immediately ran" back to the window. However, getting to the window she could only see the taillights ofa car driving away. (5RT 983-984,988-990.) Respondent argues that although Bertha said the shots were fired "fast" she did not testify as to how rapidly they were fired. (RB at p. 116.) Whether the timing of the shots was "fast" or "rapid" is a distinction without a difference. While she may not have directly testified as to the exact number of seconds involved, the only logical inference is that it required only a few seconds at most for Bertha Jacque to run part way across her bedroom immediately after hearing the shots. Within those few seconds, all shots were fired and the getaway car from which they were fired was already driving away. Contrary to respondent's characterization (RB at p. 116, fit. 57), the fact that an extremely short time was required for all shots to be fired is not "speculation" but rather the compelling inference established by the evidence in the record. Similarly, respondent notes that Vasquez testified that he heard the shots, describing them as "real fast." In an effort to diminish the impact of this testimony respondent argues that Vasquez did not see the shooting. (RB at p. 116.) Appellant submits that having heard the shots as "real fast," the fact that Vasquez did not see the shooters is irrelevant. A witness's personal knowledge may be based on the exercise of any of his or her senses, and is not limited to sight. Therefore, Vasquez's testimony that he heard the shots, and his estimation as to how fast they were fired, is based on personal perception as much as if he 10
had testified that he had seen the shots being fired. Finally, as respondent notes (RB at p. 116.), Frank Jacque also described the shooting in a manner that would create an inference ofa single fast burst ofshots, even ifhe did not break that span down into the precise number ofseconds. Thus, the independent testimony of three different witnesses confirms that the shots were fired within a matter of a few seconds at most. The only logical inference that can be drawn from this evidence is that one person fired the weapon. Appellant submits that it would not be a logical inference to conclude that one person fired a first burst of shots, handed the bulky rifle to the other person in a different part of the car, and that person took the time to have accurately taken aim and fired another burst ofshots. Indeed, it is this multiple shooter theory that requires not only speculation, but absurd speculation. No one testified that there even was a second burst of shots, nor was there any testimony regarding a delay between shots, and there is thus no evidence to support such a theory. Moreover, respondent does not and cannot explain why the shooters would engage in such an awkward and pointless exercise as passing a bulky rifle back and forth within the car in the middle of a drive-by shooting. Furthermore, other evidence also corroborates this theory of one shooter. The medical examiner's testimony regarding the placement of wounds on Robinson and Fuller suggests that the shots were fired from essentially the same position. The crime scene evidence that the casings were found clustered together also supports the inference that the weapon was not moved any substantial distance between shots. (See AOB, p. 33.) Obviously, since the rifle shots were fired from a moving car, the fact that they all appeared to have been fired from approximately the same position indicates they were fired in a single, rapid burst and, equally obviously, by a single shooter. Respondent argues that the position of the casings does not necessarily indicate that the rifle was not passed between the defendants during the shooting. 11
- 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 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
the weapon. Without again recounting that evidence in full (AOB pp. 32-33, 38<br />
39), the most telling evidence as to this issue is the limited amount <strong>of</strong> time<br />
involved in this shooting. Because there was only one rifle used, the speed with<br />
which the shots were fired clearly indicated that one person fired the shots.<br />
The evidence that gives the clearest picture as to the timing <strong>of</strong> the shots<br />
came from the testimony <strong>of</strong> Bertha Jacque who looked out <strong>of</strong> her bedroom<br />
window, saw Renesha's car, and then started walking to her bed. Before she<br />
reached the bed she heard the gunshots and "immediately ran" back to the<br />
window. However, getting to the window she could only see the taillights <strong>of</strong>a car<br />
driving away. (5RT 983-984,988-990.)<br />
Respondent argues that although Bertha said the shots were fired "fast" she<br />
did not testify as to how rapidly they were fired. (RB at p. 116.) Whether the<br />
timing <strong>of</strong> the shots was "fast" or "rapid" is a distinction without a difference.<br />
While she may not have directly testified as to the exact number <strong>of</strong> seconds<br />
involved, the only logical inference is that it required only a few seconds at most<br />
for Bertha Jacque to run part way across her bedroom immediately after hearing<br />
the shots. Within those few seconds, all shots were fired and the getaway car from<br />
which they were fired was already driving away. Contrary to respondent's<br />
characterization (RB at p. 116, fit. 57), the fact that an extremely short time was<br />
required for all shots to be fired is not "speculation" but rather the compelling<br />
inference established by the evidence in the record.<br />
Similarly, respondent notes that Vasquez testified that he heard the shots,<br />
describing them as "real fast." In an effort to diminish the impact <strong>of</strong> this<br />
testimony respondent argues that Vasquez did not see the shooting. (RB at p.<br />
116.) <strong>Appellant</strong> submits that having heard the shots as "real fast," the fact that<br />
Vasquez did not see the shooters is irrelevant. A witness's personal knowledge<br />
may be based on the exercise <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> his or her senses, and is not limited to<br />
sight. Therefore, Vasquez's testimony that he heard the shots, and his estimation<br />
as to how fast they were fired, is based on personal perception as much as if he<br />
10
Change language