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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
IV<br />
IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF CALJIC NO. 8.80.1,<br />
THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY<br />
ON THE MENTAL STATE REQUIRED FORACCOMPLICE<br />
LIABILITY WHEN A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS<br />
CHARGED. THE ERROR PERMITTED THE JURY TO<br />
FIND THE MULTIPLE MURDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE<br />
TO BE TRUE UNDER A THEORY THAT WAS NOT<br />
LEGALLY APPLICABLE TO TIDS CASE, IN VIOLATION<br />
OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE<br />
PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH<br />
AMENDMENTS AND HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT<br />
TO A JURY TRIAL.<br />
A. Introduction<br />
As explained in <strong>Appellant</strong>'s Opening <strong>Brief</strong> (AOB p. 84), the jury finding<br />
that the multiple murder special circumstance allegation was true was based upon<br />
a version <strong>of</strong> CALnC No. 8.80.1 that incorrectly stated the law regarding<br />
accomplice intent and allowed the jury to apply the special circumstance to aiders<br />
and abettors without the required intent to kill.<br />
The pattern instruction contains different sections that apply to different<br />
special circumstances, and provisions that are not applicable to the special<br />
circumstance involved in a particular case are supposed to be redacted. However,<br />
the court failed to properly redact the instruction in this case. As a result, the<br />
instruction incorrectly informed the jury that the special circumstance could be<br />
found to be true ifthe jury believed appellant was a major participant in the crime<br />
and acted with reckless indifference, a provision that is only applicable to felony<br />
murder cases and not to the multiple murder special circumstance alleged in this<br />
case.<br />
As given, CALnC 8.80.1 instructed the jury that if it was unable to decide<br />
whether the defendant was the actual killer or an aider and abettor, it could not<br />
fmd the special circumstance to be true unless it was satisfied beyond a reasonable<br />
53