People v. Jones

Decision Date20 July 2017
Docket NumberS075725
Citation3 Cal.5th 583,398 P.3d 529,220 Cal.Rptr.3d 618
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kiongozi JONES, Defendant and Appellant.

Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Jessica K. McGuire, Assistant State Public Defender, and Ellen J. Eggers, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph P. Lee and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Kruger, J.

A jury found defendant Kiongozi Jones guilty of two counts of first degree murder ( Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189 ),1 one count of attempted murder ( §§ 187, subd. (a), 664 ), one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246). The jury found true allegations that defendant had personally used a firearm (all counts; §§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)); that the attempted murder had been willful, deliberate, and premeditated ( §§ 189, 664, subd. (a) ); that defendant, in committing attempted murder, had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon a human being (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); and that defendant had previously been convicted of robbery (all counts; §§ 211, 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b)). The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant had been convicted of multiple murders in the same proceeding. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The jury fixed the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

In the span of a few minutes on the evening of December 6, 1996, four peopleMario Lopez, his sister Veronica Munguia, Angel Villa, and Nery Hernandez—were shot in the vicinity of an apartment building located at 1700 Pacific Avenue, in Long Beach. Lopez was shot twice outside of the ground-floor apartment where Munguia and another sister lived. Munguia was hit in the knee by a bullet that entered the apartment. Villa was riding a bicycle near the intersection of 16th Street and the alley behind the apartment building, when a man grabbed him by the neck and shot him in the head. The shooter then proceeded in the direction of Pine Avenue, where a car was backing out of a driveway. The shooter approached the car and shot the driver, Hernandez, in the chest. Lopez and Villa died, but Munguia and Hernandez survived.

Two police officers received a call regarding the shooting at 1700 Pacific Avenue and were told that two male African-American suspects were seen running toward Pine Avenue. The officers stopped by 1708 Pine Avenue, which was near the crime scene and was a known hangout for members of the Crips gang. The officers spoke to defendant and Melvin Sherman, among others. A few days later, the police arrested defendant and Sherman, and the prosecution charged them with crimes pertaining to these events.

A. Defendant's First Trial

Defendant and Sherman were initially charged jointly with two counts of murder (Lopez and Villa) and two counts of attempted murder (Munguia and Hernandez). Lengthy pretrial proceedings not relevant to the issues presented on appeal resulted in dismissal of these charges. Defendant was then charged separately with, pleaded not guilty to, and was held for trial on two counts of murder (Lopez and Villa), one count of attempted murder (Hernandez), one count of assault with a firearm (Munguia), and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. After Sherman was held to answer on related charges, the prosecution moved to consolidate defendant's case with Sherman's. The trial court denied this motion. Defendant's trial occurred in January 1998. The jury deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial.

B. Defendant's Second Trial

After defendant's first trial, the trial court granted the prosecution's motion to consolidate defendant's case with Sherman's. The prosecution filed an amended information charging Sherman individually with one count of conspiracy to commit murder and defendant and Sherman jointly with two counts of murder (Lopez and Villa), one count of attempted murder (Hernandez), one count of assault with a firearm (Munguia), and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. The prosecution sought the death penalty for defendant but not for Sherman. (Unless otherwise specified, all facts and analysis relate to defendant's second trial.)

1. Guilt Phase

The prosecution presented evidence showing that the shootings were part of an escalating gang war, with two African-American gangs, the Insane Crips and the Rolling 20's Crips, on one side, and a Hispanic gang, the Eastside Longos, on the other. Defendant "had been beaten up by someone just described as a Mexican," and the prosecution argued that the shootings were "payback of sorts." Defendant and Sherman spent part of the evening of December 6, 1996, at 1708 Pine Avenue, apartment 4. Within a span of about five minutes, they left the apartment, shot the victims, and returned. The prosecution contended that defendant was the shooter, and Sherman aided and abetted him. Defense counsel took the position that "[t]he sole issue in this case is identification," and, accordingly, principally sought to undermine witnesses' identifications of defendant as a perpetrator.

a. Prosecution Case
i. Background Gang Evidence

Detective Victor Thrash of the Long Beach Police Department testified that the Rolling 20's Crips and the Eastside Longos claimed the area around 1700 Pacific Avenue and 1708 Pine Avenue as their turf, and there was a "black–brown war that was going on within that specific area." Officer Freaman Potter of the Long Beach Police Department, a gang expert, gave general background about gangs and gang culture. He testified that the Insane Crips and the Rolling 20's Crips, two African-American gangs, and the Eastside Longos, a Hispanic gang, were among the largest and most violent gangs in Long Beach. He testified that he recognized defendant as a member of the Rolling 20's Crips and explained the significance of defendant's tattoos, which appeared to be related to the Rolling 20's Crips. Officer Potter said that if a member of the Rolling 20's Crips were "beaten down physically by a Hispanic gang member," he would have to respond or "the rest of the gang members would view [him] as weak."

Officer John Stolpe, Officer Michael Schaich, and Detective Steven Lasiter, all of the Long Beach Police Department, testified that they each separately had contact with defendant in April or May 1990 and, on those occasions, defendant told each of them that he was a member of the Rolling 20's Crips. Defendant told Officer Stolpe that he used the moniker "Swoop." Defendant told Officer Schaich that he used the moniker "Key Loc." And defendant told Detective Lasiter that he used the moniker "Chicken Swoop." Defendant had the words "Little 20 Swoop" tattooed on the inside of his right forearm. Officer Potter testified that that "could be his gang name."

Officer Erik Herzog of the Long Beach Police Department testified that he spoke to Rosalind Gilyard, Sherman's mother, a week after the shootings.

According to Gilyard, Sherman said he could not come to her neighborhood because there were a lot of Hispanic gangs, and he was a member of the Rolling 20's Crips. Gilyard testified that she told Officer Herzog that Sherman was a member of the Rolling 20's Crips, but she thought "he was younger when he was involved in that." Sherman showed the jury his tattoos—a "2" on the back of his left arm and a "0" on the back of his right arm.

ii. Lopez and Munguia Shootings

(a) Amber Gutierrez

Amber Gutierrez was at 1700 Pacific Avenue, visiting the apartment where Lopez's sisters lived, on the evening of December 6, 1996. A group of people had gathered at the apartment. Gutierrez was a member of the Eastside Longos, but she did not think anyone else at the apartment was a member. She was on the couch, talking on the telephone, and a man walked by the front door toward the alley; she heard him talk to somebody else but could not hear what they were saying. Lopez walked outside, and Anna Granillo, one of his sisters, entered the apartment. Right after that, Lopez was shot; he stumbled inside the apartment and fell down. Other bullets entered the apartment; one struck a balloon and another struck Munguia, who had entered the living room to get her daughter after she heard the shots. Gutierrez identified Sherman as the man who had walked by the front door. She saw a glove and a gun, but she did not see the face of the person who fired the shots. Although Gutierrez had seen defendant in the neighborhood, and he had previously "yell[ed] gang stuff" at her and her friends, she did not see defendant that evening.

(b) Veronica Munguia

Veronica Munguia, one of Lopez's sisters, lived in an apartment at 1700 Pacific Avenue, and was home on the evening of December 6, 1996. She knew members of the Eastside Longos. Munguia was in the bedroom of the apartment when Granillo entered the bedroom; shots were fired shortly thereafter. Munguia ran into the living room to get her daughter; Lopez, who had been shot, pushed her daughter toward her. Munguia was hit in the knee by a bullet that came through the wall, and she ran back into the bedroom. Lopez collapsed in the hallway of the apartment after being shot. Munguia did not see who did the shooting.

(c) Anna Granillo

Anna Granillo, Lopez and Munguia's sister, lived with Munguia at 1700 Pacific Avenue, and was home on the evening of December 6, 1996. That day, she had made several trips between the apartment and a nearby laundry room, doing laundry and returning to the apartment to fold and hang up clothes. On her last trip from the laundry room, around 7:00 p.m., she saw Lopez outside the apartment and two men by the alley. She told Lopez to " 'watch...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Mora
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 2, 2018
    ...the jury that if mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors, life is the appropriate sentence. ( People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583, 620, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 618, 398 P.3d 529.) Mora's assertions to the contrary, as well as his argument that CALJIC Nos. 8.85 and 8.88 fail to provide the ......
  • Cal. Dep't of State Hosps. At Coalinga v. C.G.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 2018
    ...the requirement to object to inadmissible evidence or else forfeit any appellate challenge to that evidence. (See, e.g., People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583, 602-604 [failure to assert evidentiary basis for admissibility in trial court precludes reliance on that ground in an appeal]; Peopl......
5 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...improper matter has had a significant effect on the opinion. 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n Rep. (1965) p. 1141; see People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583, 602. Note In 2012, the California Supreme Court instructed trial courts to act "as a gatekeeper to exclude speculative or irrelevant expert ......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§4.3 People v. Jones, 7 Cal. App. 5th 787, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167 (2d Dist. 2017)—Ch. 5-B, §2.3; C, §2.2.2(1)(b)[5] People v. Jones, 3 Cal. 5th 583, 220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 618, 398 P.3d 529 (Cal. 2017)—Ch. 1, §4.8.2; Ch. 2, §10.1.1(2)(c); §11.2.2; Ch. 6, §6 People v. Jones, 231 Cal. App. 4th 1257......
  • Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...be established by efforts to hide or destroy evidence or efforts to discourage someone else from testifying. See People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583, 609-10; People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 481 ("evidence that a [D] is threatening witnesses implies a consciousness of guilt"); People......
  • Chapter 6 - §6. Appellate review
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 6 Discretionary Exclusion Under Evid. C. §352
    • Invalid date
    ...under Evid. C. §352 is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 900; People v. Jones (2017) 3 Cal.5th 583, 609; People v. Minific (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070; see People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1176 (appellate court intervention is only w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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