People v. Baylor
| Decision Date | 16 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. B172506.,B172506. |
| Citation | 130 Cal.App.4th 355,29 Cal.Rptr.3d 864 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ravon BAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. |
Mark L. Christiansen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Joseph P. Lee and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The jury found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Mark Hall on October 17, 2002 (Pen.Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 specifically finding that defendant personally and intentionally fired a handgun to kill Hall (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The jury also found him guilty of attempting to murder Farrell Landry on that same date (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), specifically finding that the attempt was willful, deliberate, and premeditated (§ 664, subd. (a)), and that he inflicted great bodily injury on Landry by personally and intentionally firing a handgun (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). Finally, the jury found defendant guilty of attempting to murder Oscar Gallegos on October 11, 2002 (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), specifically finding that he did so willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation (§ 664, subd. (a)), and that he personally and intentionally fired a handgun to cause great bodily injury to Gallegos (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)).2 As to all counts, the jury found that defendant committed the crimes to promote a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
Defendant was sentenced to 110 years to life in state prison — four consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the first degree murder of Hall and for the firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), as to Hall, Landry, and Gallegos, plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the criminal street gang enhancement. In addition, the trial court imposed two life terms for the attempted first degree murders of Landry and Gallegos. The firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c), as to all three victims were stayed under section 654.
Defendant timely appealed from the judgment, alleging: (1) Detective Barling's testimony as to Landry's statement identifying defendant as the person who shot Hall violated his federal constitutional right to confront witnesses and was improper under this state's prior identification hearsay exception; (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting an audiotape of defendant's jailhouse telephone conversation with a person named Devon "Del Dog" Turner, in which defendant arguably admitted killing Hall and compounded that error by instructing the jury to defer to the prosecution prepared transcript; (3) the trial court violated defendant's federal constitutional right to confront witnesses, prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of Gallegos's fear of testifying, defendant's efforts to intimidate witnesses, and the efforts by the police to relocate Gallegos and his family; and (4) the trial court violated defendant's due process rights under the state and federal Constitutions by denying defendant's motions for a mistrial and a new trial, based on the prosecution's failure to secure the presence of defense witness Bruce Lemon.
We reject each of these claims. As to the first, defendant forfeited his Confrontation Clause argument by failing to object on that ground below. It also fails on the merits because Landry, the hearsay declarant, was available for cross-examination. In any event, the factual premise underlying defendant's argument is false: In the challenged statement, Landry did not say that he saw defendant actually shoot Hall. Rather, consistent with his trial testimony, Landry stated that he saw defendant "shoot at" Hall. As to the second claim, the audiotape was properly admitted as an admission and was relevant to show defendant's consciousness of guilt. Also, it is clear that the trial court merely misspoke, and there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have thought otherwise. Defendant forfeited the constitutional component of his third claim by failing to raise it below. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence, which was relevant to Gallegos's credibility, as well as to defendant's consciousness of guilt. Finally, the trial court was well within its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial and new trial. There was no due process violation, as there was no evidence of prosecution interference and no reason to think that the witness's presence could be secured at any time.
Gallegos and his cousin Juan Ramirez drove to 115th Street in the Nickerson Gardens housing projects on October 11, 2002, at approximately 8:30 p.m., to meet their friend Tony Rodriguez. Defendant approached them and threatened, "Don't be coming around my hood," and began to walk away. Gallegos replied that he "just came to pick up a friend." Defendant turned around and walked to a nearby parking lot. Gallegos picked up Rodriguez and drove around the corner to a nearby residence to retrieve a hat for Rodriguez.
Defendant reappeared with codefendant Cedric Lamonte Sanchez,3 and walked in front of Gallegos's car. They walked past Gallegos and his friends, staring at them angrily. The initials "BH" were tattooed on defendant's face. Gallegos drove his friends toward the street corner. Defendant and Sanchez walked up to the car from behind. When Gallegos turned around, he saw that Sanchez was pointing a handgun at him. Defendant pulled out his own gun and both of them began firing, hitting Gallegos approximately eight times as he tried to drive away. He managed to drive a few blocks before his injuries overwhelmed him. Ramirez took over and drove Gallegos to the hospital, where he stayed for about three weeks, having suffered a broken left arm and right hand, a collapsed lung and cracked sternum — gunshot injuries that had not entirely healed by the time of trial.
A search of the crime scene disclosed six .9-millimeter shell casings scattered along the street. Gallegos's car had numerous bullet holes on the driver's side door and rear panel, as well as window damage. Prior to trial, but after having the six shell casings booked into evidence and analyzed, the police destroyed the evidence. Under police policies, such materials generally are not destroyed until a case is over and they lose their evidentiary value. Investigating Officer Christian Mrakich of the Los Angeles Police Department did not authorize or find out about the destruction until after it happened, because somebody "dropped the ball." Los Angeles Police Department firearms examiner Starr Sachs found that the six casings had been fired from the handgun later discovered in defendant's apartment.
Officer Mrakich interviewed Gallegos while he was recuperating from his gunshot injuries at home. Gallegos identified defendant from a "six-pack" photographic lineup as the person who shot him. After the shooting, the police had Gallegos move residences. At trial, he testified while in fear of his life.
Ramirez also identified defendant from the photo spread as the shooter. He and his family were relocated from Nickerson Gardens after the shooting, because he was afraid to live there. Sanchez lived near Nickerson Gardens at the time of the shooting.
Officer Victor Ross of the Los Angeles Police Department, an expert in criminal street gangs, testified that defendant and Sanchez were active members of the Bounty Hunter Bloods, which considered the Nickerson Garden housing projects to be its "stronghold." Members of the Bounty Hunter Bloods committed various crimes, including murder and attempted murder, for the gang's benefit. The initials "BH" are a gang identifier. Typically, an unknown Hispanic in Bounty Hunter Bloods territory would be challenged by a gang member. Terrorizing such Hispanics benefitted the Bounty Hunter Bloods. Sanchez was known as defendant's crime partner.
On October 17, 2002, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Landry and Hall were walking to a liquor store near the corner of Imperial Highway and Avalon in Los Angeles, when defendant, who had a "BH" tattoo on his face, rode toward them on a bicycle and asked Landry, "Where are you from?" — meaning, are you a "gang banger?"4 Landry replied he was not. He and Hall decided not to go to the store; the confrontation with defendant had frightened them. They walked back toward Avalon, stopped at the light, and began to walk down Imperial.
Defendant rode to a nearby parking lot, circled around, rode back toward Landry and Hall, drew his handgun, and fired it at Landry, hitting him twice in the left arm, twice in the back, and three times in his buttocks and thigh (where one bullet remained). When defendant began firing, Landry ran away across Imperial. Hall was killed at the scene. Sergeant Paul McKechnie of the Los Angeles Police Department responded and found Hall lying face down on the northwest corner of Avalon and Imperial Highway, with gunshot wounds to his chest. Hall had suffered seven gunshot wounds; three of which were fatal, piercing his kidney, heart, and aorta.
Landry spent two days in the hospital after the shooting. At the time of the trial, his wounds still caused pain and limited his mobility. While in the hospital, Detective Christopher Barling of the Los Angeles Police Department showed Landry a "six-pack" photographic lineup. Landry identified defendant's photograph, adding that if a small white dot covering part of the subject's face was a tattoo, he would be 100 percent sure of his identification. In fact, the dot covered defendant's "BH" tattoo. Landry told the detective that the person he identified was the one "who shot at him and...
To continue reading
Request your trial