People v. Barrera
| Decision Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | F080953 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRENDA ESTEFANIA BARRERA, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. No CRF46999 James A. Boscoe, Judge.
Ortiz Law Group and Jesse Soto Ortiz for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary and Lewis A Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brenda Estefania Barrera crashed a car into incoming traffic killing one person and significantly injuring three others. A short while later, officers investigating the crash believed Barrera was under the influence of drugs. She was arrested and later charged with murder and related crimes. A jury convicted her as charged.
On appeal, Barrera raises six claims. One, was the evidence sufficient to prove the convictions? Two, did the court properly admit evidence regarding Barrera's prior drug use? Three, did the court properly remove a juror after the trial started? Four, was an expert witness's testimony properly admitted? Five, did the court err in permitting the prosecution's rebuttal evidence over an objection pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda)? Six, are any errors cumulatively prejudicial?
We find no prejudicial error. The judgment is affirmed.
The Tuolumne County District Attorney charged Barrera with four crimes: murder (Pen. Code,[1] § 187; Count I), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5; Count II), driving while intoxicated and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (e); Count III), and driving with a suspended driver's license (Veh. Code, § 14601.4, subd. (a); Count IV). Count III included enhancements for causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subds. (a) &(c)).
On April 21, 2015, a driver called 911 to report an "erratic" driver. Another driver told his wife to call 911 for the same reason. He believed the driver was" 'going to kill somebody .... "
A third driver activated a camera after witnessing another car "go" off "the road" and it "didn't look right." On the video, the driver states, "[Y]ou've got to be kidding me" because it "looked like [the other car] was going to pass on [the] side of the road .." Instead, the car went "from the right-hand side" "into [] oncoming traffic" and collided with another vehicle. In the other car, one person died and three others suffered serious injuries.
A law enforcement officer responded to the "head-on collision," determined Barrera was driving the car, and caused the collision by "fail[ing] stay on the right half of the roadway." The officer believed Barrera was "driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs" based on "multiple witness[es] saying that she was driving very erratically, the [collision] itself, and [her] objective symptoms ...."[2]
A second law enforcement officer performed a "drug recognition evaluation" on Barrera. It is a "12-step process" designed to "determine . whether or not the individual has an impairment or shows impairment, . whether that impairment is [] medical-related or [] drug-related[,] [a]nd, . if drug-related, . what drug category [] is" involved.
The drug recognition evaluation revealed the following facts: Barrera's "speech was slow and mumbled," she was "lethargic," her coordination was "[s]low," her eyes were "bloodshot," "[h]er eyelids appeared droopy," her pulse was "above normal," her eyes exhibited "nystagmus,"[3] and her tongue had "a brown coating . and a couple of heat bumps .." Barrera's tongue was consistent with "recent ingestion or smoking," especially "smoking something out of glass." The officer believed Barrera was "under the active influence of a central nervous system depressant or . marijuana." Barrera's blood was drawn for testing.
Later, Barrera's purse was searched, revealing "two black containers that had an odor of marijuana emitting from them" and "a glass smoking tip .." Barrera stated she used the glass "to smoke blunts .."
An expert witness tested Barrera's drawn blood and explained it was consistent with consuming "alprazolam"[4] and marijuana. The test could not establish "how much" or "when" the substances were consumed. Alprazolam is "a central nervous system depressant." The expert believed a hypothetical person similar to Barrera, based on "bad driving pattern," objective "signs and symptoms," and blood test results, was "consistent with being ... under the influence and impaired with ... alprazolam and marijuana." The expert acknowledged many of Barrera's signs and symptoms were consistent with fatigue, but added using marijuana or alprazolam while tired would only amplify fatigue.
Barrera testified she was previously arrested for and charged with driving under the influence. She later pled "guilty." Prior to the collision in this case, she was "tired, rushing, trying to pass cars." She did not consume alprazolam but did smoke "[b]etween three and four" "blunts" the night before the collision.[5] She was not impaired by either alprazolam or marijuana, but had taken alprazolam "in the past ..."
The jury found Barrera guilty of murder and driving while intoxicated and causing injury (Counts I and III). The great bodily injury enhancements were found true. The jury found her not guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Count II).[6]Barrera previously admitted to driving with a suspended license.[7] She was sentenced to serve 28 years to life in prison.
This appeal presents six questions. Did the evidence sufficiently prove Barrera committed either crime? Did the court err in admitting evidence Barrera habitually used marijuana and previously used alprazolam? Did the court err in dismissing a juror after the parties presented opening statements? Did the court err in allowing the expert witness to testify about nystagmus testing? Did the court err in permitting certain impeachment evidence, namely evidence taken in violation of Barrera's right against selfincrimination? Are any errors, if not individually prejudicial, cumulatively prejudicial? We find no reason to reverse the judgment.
In challenging the convictions, Barrera claims the evidence insufficiently proved "she was under the influence."[8] The People assert "[s]he is incorrect." We find the evidence sufficient to prove Barrera was under the influence.
"Upon a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for a jury finding, we '"' "review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence - that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value - such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." '" '" (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 323.) (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27 (Lindberg).)
The following facts prove the jury could justifiably find Barrera guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Barrera admitted to smoking marijuana prior to the collision, albeit significantly before the collision. Three witnesses trained in evaluating signs and symptoms related to driving under the influence believed Barrera was under the influence. Barrera's tongue indicated she recently consumed marijuana. Indeed, she possessed empty containers[9] and paraphernalia consistent with recently consuming marijuana. Her blood tested positive for consuming marijuana and alprazolam.
Three eyewitnesses were concerned with Barrera's ability to drive a car. Two called 911 and the other activated a video camera. One eyewitness believed Barrera was" 'going to kill somebody'" and another audibly gasps, "You've got to be kidding me," in reference to Barrera's inability to safely operate the car. Barrera then inexplicably crosses into oncoming traffic and slams into another car. Although she may have been tired, the expert explained consuming marijuana or alprazolam while tired only makes it worse. In other words, even if Barrera was tired, marijuana and alprazolam still impaired her ability to drive a car.
For all these reasons, the jury was entitled to find Barrera guilty of both crimes.[10]We reject the insufficient evidence claim.
Barrera claims the court violated Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), by admitting two statements from a third party about Barrera's drug-use history. Specifically, one statement was that Barrera "smoked [marijuana] whenever she can get her hands on it." The other statement was that Barrera "had used [alprazolam] ... in the past ..."
The People argue the marijuana statement was properly admitted and the alprazolam statement was not prejudicial.[11] We agree.
Prior to trial, Barrera moved to exclude a third party's statements about Barrera's marijuana and alprazolam use.[12] The motion was based on Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a). Barrera's counsel argued the marijuana evidence was offered to show "Barrera smokes marijuana every day and, therefore, this jury should...
To continue reading
Request your trial