People v. Melendez
Decision Date | 02 November 1990 |
Docket Number | No. F012161,F012161 |
Citation | 224 Cal.App.3d 1420,274 Cal.Rptr. 599 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mario MELENDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Mario Melendez (defendant) and Cirilo E. Guzman were tried jointly for the second degree robbery of Michael Shirher (count I, Pen.Code, § 212.5, subd. (b)) and an assault with a deadly weapon upon Steve Herrera (count II, Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). In addition, defendant was charged with an arming allegation (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (a)) in count I. Defendant and Guzman were convicted of second degree robbery. The jury was deadlocked on the arming allegation and count II. A mistrial was declared as to these charges. Defendant appeals, claiming three instructional errors and prosecutorial misconduct. We reverse, finding two separate instructional errors, one of which we discuss in the published portion of this opinion.
On November 30, 1988, Michael Shirher was working as the store manager at a Radio Shack in Bakersfield. A Hispanic man (Provencio) wearing a white sweater was in the store. He left and returned a few minutes later. Defendant entered the store and was being helped by Shirher when Provencio returned. Shirher watched Provencio when he was in the store the second time. He left again and returned a third time five minutes later. In the interim period, defendant made a purchase and left. When Provencio entered the store for the third time, Guzman was in the store. Provencio grabbed a video cassette recorder (VCR) and ran from the store.
Deputy Sheriff Steve Herrera was off duty that day and had gone to Radio Shack to make a purchase. When he arrived, his attention was drawn to a dark compact car. Defendant was in the car; Guzman and Provencio got out of the car and entered Radio Shack. Herrera thought it was unusual that the car was parked some distance from the store when there was parking available closer to the store.
Herrera saw Provencio pick up the VCR and run out of the store. Herrera chased Provencio. Guzman followed. The three of them ran behind the store building. Herrera went to the ground when he heard shots. Guzman told Herrera to stay down. Guzman had fired the shots; of this, Herrera was positive.
The same compact dark car was then observed by Herrera behind the building. He saw defendant standing at the open door of the driver's side of the car and recognized him as the same person he had seen in the car when it was parked at the front of the store. Although Herrera did not see defendant's face either time, he recognized him by other features. Herrera was not "absolutely positive" of his identification of defendant. Herrera returned to Radio Shack.
Police officer Mike Vest was on duty the evening of November 30, 1988. He was driving near the Radio Shack and saw two men in the alley; one was holding an object. He then heard gunshots. The two men jumped the fence into an apartment complex. Vest followed and saw several people standing around. Two members of the group looked like the two Vest had seen in the alley. They fled when they saw him. Vest chased the one wearing a white sweat shirt.
Officer Kevin Legg received a report of two individuals running from Radio Shack. While responding to this call, he received a report of the armed robbery at Radio Shack. Legg went to the apartment complex and saw the "suspect vehicle" drive by. He asked the driver to stop, but the driver drove away rapidly. Legg shined his light into the vehicle. Defendant was driving, and Guzman was the passenger. Legg got the license plate number from the car. After learning that defendant was the registered owner, Legg went to his house and saw the car. When Legg arrived, defendant and Guzman came out of the house. Guzman had changed his clothes.
Shirher and Herrera were taken to three locations and shown a total of five people. Shirher identified defendant and Guzman as being in the store that evening. Herrera identified Guzman as being in the store and shooting at him. He identified defendant as the person who was in the dark compact car in front of the building before the robbery and behind the building after the robbery.
A white sweat shirt was found near the path that Provencio fled. The VCR was found behind Radio Shack in some shrubbery behind a tree. The officers failed to find a gun or expended cartridges.
James Clifton testified that he was at the apartment complex the evening of November 30, 1988. He saw the officers chase some men through the complex. He saw one of the men jump into a dark car driven by a white man with blond hair and a mustache. On cross-examination Clifton was shown a picture of defendant's car and said the photo looked like the car he saw except it was not the same color. He also testified that he was threatened by a tall white man that he would be beaten if he testified.
The jury was instructed that it could find defendant and Guzman guilty as principals under theories of active participation, aiding and abetting, and/or conspiracy. Aiding and abetting and conspiracy were further defined for the jury.
The People argued that defendant was guilty of both counts and the arming allegation as either an aider and abettor or a conspirator. It was not argued that defendant was a direct participant in the robbery. In discussing aiding and abetting and conspiracy, the prosecutor stated, "I think there is a bunch of ways to find both men guilty of the count alleged against them." The prosecutor's comments on conspiracy were as follows:
The prosecutor also argued if the jury believed defendant was there and saw what happened, he was an aider and abettor. If the jury believed there was a plan beforehand, anything in furtherance of that plan made defendant responsible.
The theme of defendant's argument was the People failed to prove his involvement. Defendant argued that Shirher saw nothing that connected him to Provencio, and he was not in the store when the crime was committed. Therefore, conspiracy was not shown. Defendant focused on the uncertainty of Herrera's identification of him. Defendant asserted that Officer Legg's testimony was inconsistent; in contrast, he argued, Clifton's testimony was consistent and more believable. Defendant stated that regardless of which theory the jury used--aiding and abetting or conspiracy--there was not enough evidence to find him guilty. Proof of an agreement, he urged, was totally lacking.
The jury was not given CALJIC No. 17.01, the standard unanimity instruction. It provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harris
....... Whether those figures are accurate is not the issue. Many people have a great deal of difficulty in accepting insanity as a meritorious defense. See State v. Jasuilewicz, 205 N.J.Super. 558, 567, 501 A.2d 583 ... Id. at 635, 592 A.2d 228 (quoting People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990)). . A specific unanimity instruction is required when "it appears that a genuine ......
-
People v. Majors
......Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1305, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1.) . 4. Instructional Issues . a) Failure to Give Unanimity Instruction . Relying on People v. Melendez (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree he committed the same acts in order to find him guilty of the murder counts and the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegations. (See ......
-
State v. Brown
...... In a criminal charge involving one incident and two people, the jury is regarded as being unanimous if, without specifically identifying who was the principal and who was the accomplice, they all agree that ... [124 N.J. at 635, 592 A.2d 228 (quoting People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 274 Cal.Rptr. 599, 608 (1990). . Page 578 . The circumstances identified by this Court in Parker as requiring ......
-
People v. Cooks, Docket No. 97114
...... The jury found Cooks guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. . 4 See also People v. Melendez, 224 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1429, 274 Cal.Rptr. 599 (1990). The continuous course of conduct exception to the requirement of a specific unanimity instruction must be narrowly drawn. The continuous conduct exception only applies to those offense where the statute defining the crime may be interpreted ......