People v. Castille

Decision Date24 May 2005
Docket NumberNo. A089623.,A089623.
Citation29 Cal.Rptr.3d 71,129 Cal.App.4th 863
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clemeth Ray CASTILLE et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Robert Joseph Beles, Oakland, and Paul McCarthy for Defendant and Appellant Clemeth Ray Castille.

Stephen Michael Greenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Remon Shields.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Christina Vom Saal, Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CORRIGAN, Acting P.J Three defendants were tried together for murder with special circumstances and attendant enhancements. They had been questioned during a joint interview, a tape recording of which was admitted at trial. In our original opinion, we held that the statements were properly admitted against each defendant. (People v. Castille (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 469, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 489) (Castille I). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (Crawford). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Remon Shield and Clemeth Castille, both 17 years old, and Robert Brown, age 18, decided to rob Sharif's Market in Oakland. Shields collected two sawed-off shotguns: a single-shot 16-gauge Winchester and a pump-action, 12-gauge Mossberg. After Shields put the guns in Brown's car, Brown drove all three to the store.

At Shields' direction, Brown made a U-turn in front of the market and parked about 15 feet from the door. Shields and Castille got out of the car, put on ski masks and covered their heads. Before entering the store, Shields handed Castille the 16-gauge shotgun that fired lead pellets. Shields carried the 12-gauge Mossberg that fired a slug. Brown remained in the car. Inside the market, Abdo Nashar stood behind the counter near the cash register. Nabil Abdullah was checking a display at the front counter and owner Ibrahim Sharif El-Din was in an upstairs apartment.

Appellants had agreed that Shields would approach the clerk and Castille would act as "back-up." However, Castille walked in first and approached Nashar at the register. Shields followed and stood at the door, about six to eight feet from the counter. Abdullah heard Castille say something to Nashar, after which Nashar grabbed the gun and struggled with Castille. Frightened, Abdullah began to back away, telling Nashar to give Castille the money. Abdullah saw Shields pointing his shotgun into the interior of the store. As he hid behind a refrigerator, Abdullah heard two shots, six or seven seconds apart. He looked out to see Nashar lying behind the cash register, bleeding. Nashar died from a gunshot wound to the head.

In the apartment above, Sharif El-Din looked out the window and saw a car parked near the store with the passenger-side door open. He heard someone inside the car ask, "Did you kill him?" He also heard another voice yell, "Go! Go! Go!"

The shotguns were kept at Castille's house for several weeks until Brown and Castille gave them to a friend to sell. The friend alerted police and the guns were recovered. A firearms expert opined that wadding found on the floor of the market and an expended shell casing found outside the store came from the 12-gauge Mossberg that Shields had carried into the business. Once loaded, the Mossberg had to be pumped to chamber a cartridge. The pump had to be employed again to eject the shell. Approximately five pounds of pressure were required to pull the Mossberg's trigger. A large-caliber expended slug was recovered from the wall five feet behind the cash register. It appeared to have passed through a plexiglas display. The holes in the plexiglas and wall were aligned. The hole in the wall was located four feet 10 inches from the floor. The victim was five feet three inches tall. The path of the wound was from the victim's left to right at a 30-degree downward angle. The wound was consistent with having been caused by a slug, rather than shotgun pellets. Shotgun pellets were found next to and inside the cash register.

Shields, Castille and Brown were eventually arrested and interviewed separately. Each waived his Fifth Amendment rights after a proper Miranda1 admonition. When the individual statements were completed, the suspects were brought together and a joint interview was conducted. Defendants did not testify and their individual statements were not offered.

The jury convicted Shields and Castille of first degree murder with the special circumstance that the murder occurred during the attempted commission of a robbery. The jury also found that Shields and Castille each used a firearm during the crime. Brown was convicted as an accessory armed with a firearm. Shields and Castille were sentenced to life in prison without parole plus 10 years for the firearm enhancements. Brown, who was sentenced to four years in prison, does not appeal. We use the collective term "defendants" to refer to Shields, Castille and Brown. The term "appellants" refers to Shields and Castille.

DISCUSSION

I. Admissibility of the Joint Interview Statement

Before trial, the prosecutor indicated he would offer the joint statement during his case-in-chief. Defendants objected and, in the alternative, sought separate trials. As we explain more fully below, appellants' significant admissions regarding the attempted robbery and murder do not offend the principles enunciated in Crawford Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (Bruton), and People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, 47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265 (Aranda). Those portions of the joint interview were properly received in evidence. Some of the trial court's rulings regarding other portions of the interview were erroneous, but harmless.

A. The Joint Interview Background

The interview was conducted under the direction of Lieutenant Ralph Lacer. Aware of the general rule under Bruton and Aranda that the statement of one defendant is inadmissible against another when they are tried together before the same jury, Lacer decided to employ a joint interview technique. Within two hours of the individual interviews, Lacer met together with four homicide detectives and all three suspects. Each defendant confirmed he had been given a Miranda admonition, had agreed to give a statement and was currently aware of his Fifth Amendment protections. The defendants were then questioned together.

Several methods were used to include all three defendants in the interview. The officers frequently began their inquiry on a particular topic by addressing one defendant and then continuing the account with another. Often the same question was asked of each defendant. At certain times, once a statement or series of statements was made by one defendant, an officer would turn to the other defendants and ask each of them in turn whether what the original speaker said was true. Sometimes, one of the defendants would reply that he did not remember a particular detail. When the information related solely or principally to a given defendant, questions were asked only of that defendant. On separate occasions, when Lacer was relating his understanding of what had taken place, Shields and Castille each corrected or augmented Lacer's statement.

While a number of related topics were discussed, we focus on the following events: defendants' conduct before the robbery and murder, appellants' actions inside the market, the flight afterwards, and the disposition of the guns. During the course of the interview, defendants made a combination of direct and adoptive admissions, as evident in the portions of the joint statement identified below.

Lacer began the interview with questions about planning. He asked Brown, "[W]here were you guys when you were talking about robbing the store?" Brown responded, "At [Castille's]2 house." Brown said, "I remember that, we were talking about . . . how we didn't have any money, and how, and I just lost my job. And we're just talking about . . . we need to get some money. That's about it." Lacer then asked Shields, "[H]ow do you remember the conversation at . . . Castille's house?" Shields answered, "[W]e was just talking. The stuff about money problems and stuff, I was, I said I don't know what it but popped up, but I don't know who brought it up." Lacer asked Castille, "Let me ask Mr. Castille, what do you remember of the conversation, son?" Castille answered, "We was just talking and everything, about, you know what I am saying, I have no money or whatever . . . you know, . . . just talking about it, and it just came up." When Lacer asked how the money was to be divided, Shields said he planned to give his share to Castille and Brown, but never claimed to have so informed them. Shields stated, "[I]t wasn't no talk about the money though, you know, really, cause I knew deep down in my heart at some point we was going to turn back, I knew, I knew we would, I knew."

Lacer asked Brown how the guns got in his car. Brown said that Shields put them there. Lacer then asked Shields, "Now . . . Brown said you put the guns in the car[,] is that right Mr. Shields?" Shields answered, "Yes." Castille was later asked how the guns got into the car and replied, "[Shields] brought `em in the car." A short time later Shields was again asked, "Mr. Shields[,] you put the guns in the car is that correct?" Shields answered, "Yes." Lacer misunderstood Shields to mean that he took the guns to Castille's home before placing them in the car. Castille raised his hand to correct Lacer and said the guns were not taken into his house. Shields acknowledged that he took the guns directly to the car, which was parked in front of Castille's house. When Lacer asked where he got the guns,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Trujillo v. Lewis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 29 Septiembre 2014
    ...and not excludable under Evidence Code section 352, the statement is admissible against that party declarant." (People v. Castille (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 863, 875-876, fn. omitted (Castille); Evid. Code, § 1220.) "Evidence Code section 1220 covers all statements of a party, whether or not t......
  • Lewis v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 26 Septiembre 2012
    ...are thus not subject to Bruton-Aranda. (People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646; People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821; People v. Castille (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 863; and People v. Osuna (1969) 70 Cal.2d 759).13 Dckt. No. 19-1 at 12-13. 2. Applicable Legal Standards The Sixth Amendment to th......
  • People v. Jennings
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 12 Agosto 2010
    ...among codefendants was admitted under adoptive-admission rule].) Instructive on this point is People v. Castille (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 863, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 71 ( Castille ), which involved a situation almost identical to the one presentedhere-a jointly conducted law enforcement interview of ......
  • Engle v. Lumpkin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 12 Mayo 2022
    ..., 308 Kan. 1183, 427 P.3d 865, 893 (2018) ; Com. v. Lewis , 374 Mass. 203, 371 N.E.2d 775, 776–77 (1978) ; People v. Castille , 129 Cal.App.4th 863, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 71, 88 (2005) ; State v. Mitchell , 167 Wis.2d 672, 482 N.W.2d 364, 373 (1992) ; United States v. Lares-Valdez , 939 F.2d 688......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...Wash, 6 Cal.4th at 238-39 (no valid invocation when D said "I don't know if I wanna talk anymore"); People v. Castille (1st Dist.2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 863, 885 (no valid invocation when D asked "do I have to talk about this right now"; statement merely showed discomfort with particular ques......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...5-A, §3.3.2(1)(b) People v. Castellanos, 219 Cal. App. 3d 1163, 269 Cal. Rptr. 93 (4th Dist. 1990)—Ch. 3-A, §3.3 People v. Castille, 129 Cal. App. 4th 863, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 71 (1st Dist. 2005)—Ch. 3-B, §6.1; Ch. 5-C, §2.2.3(2) (a)[2] People v. Castillo, 49 Cal. 4th 145, 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 34......
  • Chapter 3 - §6. Exception—Party's adoptive admission
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 3 Hearsay
    • Invalid date
    ...hearsay statement and who, by words or conduct, manifested belief in or adoption of its truth. People v. Castille (1st Dist.2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 863, 876; see People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 229; People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 789-90. The rationale for this exception is t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT