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.
murders <strong>of</strong> the two victims for the benefit <strong>of</strong> their gang," and therefore there was<br />
no error in not giving the instruction." (RB at p. 154.) Respondent lists numerous<br />
facts in an attempt to support this contention, including the "use <strong>of</strong> armor piercing<br />
bullets for well-aimed shots that killed both victims," the fact that the defendants<br />
were hardcore gang members who kill enemies, and the fact that they bragged<br />
about the shooting. (RB at p. 154.) The contention is absurd.<br />
The first fallacy <strong>of</strong> this position is that there was no direct evidence<br />
regarding the mental state <strong>of</strong>either defendant, so the idea that it was "indisputably<br />
established" at trial that the defendants acted "cold-bloodedly" and with<br />
premeditation and deliberation is a fantasy on respondent's part. <strong>Appellant</strong><br />
acknowledges that Vasquez's testimony might provide some support for<br />
respondent's position, but for reasons stated previously his testimony was highly<br />
unreliable as a matter <strong>of</strong> law. (Ante, at pp. 12-14.) Furthermore, even if his<br />
testimony or Contreras's were to be believed, it is still a far cry from reality to<br />
contend that a first degree mental state was "indisputably established."<br />
Respondent claims far more than the evidence can possibly support.<br />
Moreover, none <strong>of</strong> respondent's allegations really address the issue in<br />
question. Even if there was evidence supporting a first-degree theory, the lesser<br />
included instruction must still be given ifthere is substantial evidence which could<br />
also have supported the description <strong>of</strong>second degree murder described in CALnc<br />
No. 8.31, namely an act performed with a conscious disregard for human life,<br />
rather than a deliberate and premeditated murder. Contrary to respondent's<br />
argument, the facts in evidence are equally consistent with the theory <strong>of</strong> second<br />
degree murder as they are with premeditation.<br />
Respondent's conclusions do not follow from the evidence cited in their<br />
support. For example, the fact that the rifle contained armor piercing bullets does<br />
not logically reflect on his specific mental state when the shots were actually fired.<br />
If he or Nunez spotted Robinson and Fuller and immediately lifted the rifle and<br />
fired the shots on a whim and without premeditation-a scenario equally possible<br />
34