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 ...
II. BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT SUA SPONTE ON THE LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF IMPLIED MALICE MURDER OF THE SECOND DEGREE THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY, AND HIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF GUILT AND PENALTY IN A CAPITAL CASE A. Introduction As explained more fully in Appellant's Opening Brief (AOB at p. 59), appellant was charged with two counts of murder. Because several alternative theories were supported by the evidence, the court instructed the jury on three theories of murder in the first degree: I) deliberate and premeditated murder; 2) murder by the use of armor-piercing ammunition; and 3) drive-by murder. The court also instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of unpremeditated murder of the second degree and on the related special finding pertaining to the intentional discharge ofa firearm from a vehicle. However, the court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second degree murder resulting from the commission of an unlawful act dangerous to life; Le., implied malice murder ofthe second degree. (See CALJIC No. 8.31.) Because substantial evidence supported such an instruction, and because the court's error prevented the jury from considering a theory that would have resulted in a lesser degree of homicide, the court's error violated appellant's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law, his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and his Eighth Amendment right to a reliable determination ofguilt and penalty. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed. 28
B. The Constitutional Issues Are Not Waived. are waived. Respondent contends that the constitutional grounds urged in this argument Appellant incorporates the principles discussed more fully above, which are equally applicable to the potential waiver of this issue. (Ante, at pp. 21-26.) However, in addition to the arguments set forth above, appellant notes that a trial court has a sua sponte duty to give correct instructions on the basic principles of the law applicable to the case, including instructions on lesser included offenses, independent of any request or objection of the defendant. (People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 638; People v. Anderson (2006) 141 Cal.AppAth 430, 442.) Because this duty does not depend on any request and/or objection from the defendant, it follows that the failure to make a specific request for such an instruction is not a waiver ofthe issue. Indeed, requiring a specific objection in this case would have the de facto affect ofabrogating the Penal Code section 1259 which provides that challenges to jury instructions affecting substantial rights are not waived even if no objection is made at trial. Therefore, appellant has not waived the constitutional grounds regarding this issue. C. The Doctrine OfInvited Error Does Not Apply Respondent also claims that appellant's constitutional claims are procedurally barred under the doctrine ofinvited error. (RB at pp. 150-151.) That doctrine is not applicable to this claim because that doctrine is only applicable when the defendant specifically asks for or objects to a particular instruction, the request is granted, and then the defendant seeks to complain on appeal that his request was granted. As explained in People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Ca1.3d 307: 29
- 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: Finally, it must be noted that the
- 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
B. The Constitutional Issues Are Not Waived.<br />
are waived.<br />
Respondent contends that the constitutional grounds urged in this argument<br />
<strong>Appellant</strong> incorporates the principles discussed more fully above, which are<br />
equally applicable to the potential waiver <strong>of</strong> this issue. (Ante, at pp. 21-26.)<br />
However, in addition to the arguments set forth above, appellant notes that a trial<br />
court has a sua sponte duty to give correct instructions on the basic principles <strong>of</strong><br />
the law applicable to the case, including instructions on lesser included <strong>of</strong>fenses,<br />
independent <strong>of</strong> any request or objection <strong>of</strong> the defendant. (People v. <strong>William</strong>s<br />
(2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 638; People v. Anderson (2006) 141 Cal.AppAth<br />
430, 442.) Because this duty does not depend on any request and/or objection<br />
from the defendant, it follows that the failure to make a specific request for such<br />
an instruction is not a waiver <strong>of</strong>the issue.<br />
Indeed, requiring a specific objection in this case would have the de facto<br />
affect <strong>of</strong>abrogating the Penal Code section 1259 which provides that challenges to<br />
jury instructions affecting substantial rights are not waived even if no objection is<br />
made at trial. Therefore, appellant has not waived the constitutional grounds<br />
regarding this issue.<br />
C. The Doctrine OfInvited Error Does Not Apply<br />
Respondent also claims that appellant's constitutional claims are<br />
procedurally barred under the doctrine <strong>of</strong>invited error. (RB at pp. 150-151.)<br />
That doctrine is not applicable to this claim because that doctrine is only<br />
applicable when the defendant specifically asks for or objects to a particular<br />
instruction, the request is granted, and then the defendant seeks to complain on<br />
appeal that his request was granted. As explained in People v. Wickersham (1982)<br />
32 Ca1.3d 307:<br />
29
Change language