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 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
In fact, an objection is sufficient if it fairly appraises the trial court <strong>of</strong> the<br />
issue it is being called on to decide. The objection will be deemed preserved ifthe<br />
record shows that the trial court understood the issue presented. (People v. Young<br />
(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1186; People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 284,290.) In this<br />
case, the additional aspects <strong>of</strong> this issue that appellant has raised under the Fifth<br />
and Eighth Amendments do not present a radically different approach to the issue.<br />
Therefore, the trial court was adequately appraised <strong>of</strong>the issue.<br />
Furthermore, waiver is not a favored concept and should be sparingly<br />
applied, especially in a criminal case. "Because the question whether defendant<br />
has preserved his right to raise this issue on appeal is close and difficult, we<br />
assume he has preserved his right, and proceed to the merits." (People v. Bruner<br />
(1995) 9 Ca1..4th 1178, 1183, n. 5; see also People v. Wattier (1996) 51<br />
Cal.AppAth 948, 953.) "Whether the [general] rule shall be applied is largely a<br />
question <strong>of</strong> the appellate court's discretion." (People v. Blanco (1992) 10<br />
Cal.AppAth 1167, 1172-1173.)<br />
In conclusion, this court should not hold that appellant has forfeited the<br />
constitutional aspects <strong>of</strong>this claim and should instead address these aspects <strong>of</strong>the<br />
claim in resolving the issue.<br />
G. Conclusion<br />
The finding that both defendants personally fired the weapon was<br />
unsupported by and contrary to the evidence presented. The only logical<br />
interpretation <strong>of</strong> the evidence is that only one person fired the rifle. Because the<br />
prosecutor admitted he failed to prove who the shooter was, the People should not<br />
be allowed to assert at this time that it was proven that appellant was the actual<br />
shooter.<br />
This error was aggravated when the trial court, in imposing the death<br />
penalty, relied in part on the fact that the jury determined that appellant was the<br />
shooter.<br />
26