Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

Because nothing in the record establishes that the personal weapon use
enhancements were actually based on a valid ground, because the prosecution
presented its case to the jury on the legally incorrect theory, and because nothing
in other properly given instructions corrected the mistake about the law, a reversal
of the enhancements is required. (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 63-71;
People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1125-1126, 1128.)
F. The Impact Of The Instructional Errors Was Exacerbated By The Trial
Court's Instruction That The Jury Was Required To Use Verdict Forms That
Failed To Reflect The Legally Available Options And By The Fact That The
Language Set Forth In The Verdicts Conformed To The Legally Incorrect
Theory Set Forth In The Court's Instruction
Appellant has previously discussed the deficiencies in the language of the
verdict form (Ante, at pp. 5-7, AOB at pp. 33-34), and the fact that the verdict
form led to an improper finding ofpersonal use of the firearm on the part of both
defendants.
Respondent acknowledges the verdict forms were "phrased to indicate each
appellant personally discharged a firearm" (RB 190), but contends the defects in
the verdicts forms were harmless because the prosecutor argued the jury could find
the enhancement true on fmding "each appellant was a principal in the
commission ofthe murders." (RB 190.)
What the prosecutor actually told the jury was a little different than
respondent's representation. The prosecutor told the jury:
Now, this [proof of the gang enhancement allegation] is also
important for another reason. The last allegation. Penal Code
section 12022.53 (d). This is the gun allegation.
That gun allegation requires that I prove that a defendant
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm that proximately
caused someone's death. Obviously, it proximately caused
someone's death. Renesha and Edward.
You know this was intentional. This wasn't an accident.
72