People v. Guillen

Decision Date07 July 2014
Docket NumberG046163
Citation174 Cal.Rptr.3d 703,227 Cal.App.4th 934
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Miguel Angel GUILLEN et al., Defendants and Appellants.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

See 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against the Person, § 185 et seq.

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, James A. Stotler, Judge. Affirmed as modified. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF3677)

Janice M. Lagerlof, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Miguel Angel Guillen.

David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Garrett Eugene Aguilar.

Lynda A. Romero, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Stephen Paul Carlstrom, Jr.

Tracy J. Dressner, La Crescenta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Jared Louis Petrovich.

John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Raul Villafana.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

O'LEARY, P.J.

On September 14, 2006, John Derek Chamberlain was arrested for possession of child pornography. Twenty-one days later, inmates in Theo Lacy Jail in the City of Orange (TLJ) beat Chamberlain to death because they believed he was a child molester. As waves of inmates hit, kicked, stomped, and did other abhorrent things to Chamberlain over the course of about 30 minutes, three Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) personnel sat in an enclosed guard station approximately 68 feet away. Chamberlain suffered injuries consistent with a high-velocity car accident, including fractures to 21 of his 24 ribs. OCSD was the lead investigating agency and interviewed hundreds of people. After the investigation, Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) proceedings were convened and Grand Jury indictments were returned. As a result of the Grand Jury proceedings, the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) issued an Investigative Report (the DA Report) and eventually filed a consolidated and amended information.

A jury convicted Miguel Angel Guillen, Jared Louis Petrovich, Garrett Eugene Aguilar, Stephen Paul Carlstrom, Jr., and Raul Villafana of second degree murder of Chamberlain. We refer to them collectively as appellants or defendants depending on the context and in the singular by their last names. A short summary of the issues presented and our conclusions is as follows:

(1) Appellants argue insufficient evidence supports their second degree murder convictions under the prosecution's three theories of second degree murder. We conclude sufficient evidence supports appellants' convictions for second degree murder under each of the prosecution's theories of second degree murder.

(2) Appellants contend the trial court erred when it denied their motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct. We conclude the court properly denied the motion to dismiss because the government's conduct was not so outrageous to warrant dismissal.

(3) Appellants assert the court committed five evidentiary errors. We conclude the court committed two evidentiary errors, but appellants were not prejudiced by the errors.

(4) Appellants argue the court committed one instructional error. We conclude the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on one theory of involuntary manslaughter because insufficient evidence supported giving the instruction.

(5) Appellants contend that after an alternate juror replaced an ill juror, the court instructed the jury to begin deliberations anew but through its statements erred in telling the jury to resume deliberations where it ended. We conclude the court erred in so instructing the jury, but appellants were not prejudiced by the error.

(6) Appellants assert the court erred in imposing fines. We conclude the court erred in imposing fines on Aguilar and Petrovich, and their fines will be reduced.

(7) Appellants claim there was cumulative error. We conclude the court's two evidentiary errors and one quasi-instructional error during this lengthy trial do not amount to cumulative prejudicial error requiring reversal.

We affirm the judgments as modified.

FACTS
I. Facts of the Offense
A. Theo Lacy Jail's Architecture

OCSD operates three jails in Orange County, including TLJ, a jail that houses both those charged with crimes and those convicted of crimes. TLJ inmates are housed in either modules, which are individual cells, or barracks, which are dormitory style. The barracks are identified by a distinct letter. F Barracks is divided in half with a wall separating it into equal triangles identified as F Barracks West (F West) and F Barracks East (F East); they are mirror images of each other. A diagram of the first floor of F West as it existed at the time of Chamberlain's death, which was a trial court exhibit, is attached as appendix A. Certain modifications to F Barracks have occurred since the time of the incident and are noted hereafter. At the time of the incident, each half of F Barracks contained a dormitory-style housing unit for 146 inmates, totaling 292 minimum security inmates.

On F West's ground floor are dormitory cubes A through H situated counterclockwise, two bathrooms, and a day room. The ground floor bathroom between cubes B and C has a hot water faucet. There are two staircases leading to the second floor where cubes I through P are similarly situated, along with two additional bathrooms. At the time of the incident, the dormitory cubes had four-foot privacy walls but no doors or bars. Some of the cubes are larger than other cubes and protrude farther into the day room, creating spots that are not visible from the guard station. Inmates are issued a uniform, shoes, toiletries, pencil and paper, plastic spoon, and a white cup.

The day room is a large open area where inmates have access to telephones, television, games, cards, and tables. The day room time is scheduled each day and occurs in one-to-two hour blocks. It is common for both sides of F Barracks to use the day room and restroom facilities simultaneously. During day room time, all 292 inmates can roam their respective sides.

In the center of F Barracks' dividing wall, is a hexagonal shaped elevated guard station known as “the bubble.” Access to the guard station is through a door located in a corridor that runs inside the dividing wall and connects to both F West and F East, as well as to the barracks' exterior. Half of the guard station's windows face F West and the other half face F East. The guard station windows are opaque, allowing one to view inside only if illuminated. During day room time, F Barracks can get very loud; inside the guard station it is loud but “somewhat muted.” There are a television and chairs in the guard station. The guard station television has the same feed as the inmate television. At the time of Chamberlain's death, there were no surveillance cameras located in F Barracks. There was a camcorder in the guard station that a deputy could use to record unusual incidents.

Because some of the cubes are larger than other cubes, the view of some of the cubes from the guard station is limited. For example, the first floor C cube extends farther than D cube, which from the guard station creates a blind spot on the east side of D cube. From the guard station, a guard can only see part of the top bunk and the top half of an average size man visible over the privacy wall of D cube. In addition, a person seated in the guard station has a limited view of F Barracks, especially of the first floor, because it was hard to see over the counter top. The privacy walls exacerbated the limited view at the time of the incident.

At the time, F Barracks was supervised by two deputy sheriffs and a sheriff special officer (SSO). The deputy sheriffs were in charge of supervising and escorting inmates and were to walk the F Barracks floor every 30 minutes unless assigned to other duties. The SSO remained in the guard station, carried out clerical duties, and did not have direct contact with the inmates. The F Barracks staff monitored inmates using “mod cards” that contained an inmate's photograph and other indentifying information. Sometimes information such as a sex crime charge would be highlighted on a mod card.

B. TLJ Culture

Inmates at TLJ, as well as at other Orange County jails, form race-based groups called “CARs,” Classification According to Race. The CAR system is an inmate-generated hierarchy divided along racial lines that has existed since the 1950s. In October 2006, the CAR system was present in all Orange County jails and the majority of California jails.

In F West there were three CARs each with its own management hierarchy. The three CARs were the Woods, the Paisanos, and the South–Siders. The Woods were the Caucasian inmates, the Paisanos were the Mexican national inmates, and the South–Siders were the Hispanic–American inmates, who were primarily gang members and were the most dominant CAR. Most inmates were members of one of the CARs. Each CAR had a leader, a “shot caller,” a second in command, a “right-hand man,” an enforcer, a “torpedo,” and a person waiting in command, a “mouse.” There was also a “house mouse” for the entire barracks who is in charge of cleaning the barracks, distributing commissary slips, and communicating with the deputies about the barracks' needs. Inmates were aware of who occupied the roles and when a change occurred after someone left the barracks.

The shot caller and the right-hand man were responsible for determining which inmates were disciplined or “taxed.” Taxing was a form of punishment that included assaults, cleaning duties, squats, or providing items from the commissary. A common form of taxing was “the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
158 cases
  • People v. Denard
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2015
    ...or reckless, amounting to a disregard of human life or an indifference to the consequences. [Citation.]’ " (People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934, 1027, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 703.) Voluntary manslaughter is a "serious felony" under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(1), and thus qualifies as ......
  • People v. Fultz
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 27, 2021
  • People v. Mataele
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2022
    ...as Johnson's assailant. ( People v. Najera (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 212, 218–219, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 244 ; see also People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934, 1024, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 703 [trial court properly excluded ambiguous statements as having little probative value, contrary to defendant's......
  • People v. Mataele
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2022
    ...Johnson's assailant. ( People v. Najera (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 212, 218–219, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 244 ; see also People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934, 1024, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 703 [trial court properly excluded ambiguous statements as having little probative value, contrary to defendant's cl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...1280, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 266. Any request from the jury pending at the time of a juror’s discharge is void. People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 934, 1030, 174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 703. When the jury has reached partial verdicts, the court may accept the verdicts before discharging the juror,......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...11:10, 16:100, 19:140, 22:140 Guerra, People v. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 933, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 175, §22:230 Guillen, People v. (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 934, 174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 703, §22:100 Gunder, People v. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 412, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 817, §§7:50, 9:60 Gurule, People v. (2......

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