People v. Mendoza

Decision Date13 August 1998
Docket NumberNo. S058027,S058027
Citation18 Cal.4th 1114,77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428,959 P.2d 735
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 959 P.2d 735, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6320, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8739 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose Luis MENDOZA et al., Defendants and Appellants

Eric S. Multhaup, Mill Valley, William M. Robinson, San Francisco, and Mark D. Greenberg, Oakland, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendants and Appellants.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Stan M. Helfman, Sharon G. Birenbaum and Violet M. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHIN, Justice.

Defendant Juan Manuel Valdez was convicted of criminal offenses as an aider and abettor of the person who directly perpetrated the crimes. The mental state necessary for conviction as an aider and abettor is knowledge of the perpetrator's criminal purpose and the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the target offense. (See generally, People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 259, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013.) We must decide whether the finder of fact, here a jury, may consider evidence of defendant's voluntary intoxication in deciding whether he had this necessary mental state. We conclude that the jury may consider voluntary intoxication as to both knowledge and intent in deciding guilt as to all the charged offenses. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter for that court to decide whether the trial court prejudicially misinstructed the jury in this regard.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Evidence At Trial 1

On April 9, 1993, Mary Plell hosted a party at a rented warehouse in Watsonville. She asked her brother, David Plell, to serve as the doorman to ensure that no one under the influence of alcohol entered. Chuck Christ and Kirk DeHaan came to the party to supply and set up the sound system. The party began about 10:00 p.m., and more than 100 people attended it.

Earlier in the evening, defendants Jose Luis Mendoza and Juan Manuel Valdez and their friends, Gabriel Gonzalez and Scott Smith, had decided to obtain some beer, drive into the hills, and drink the beer. Smith was to be the "designated driver" and not drink. Because they were underage, they had someone else purchase a case of beer for them. They went into the hills and began drinking between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. They drank all but three of the beers in about three hours. Valdez had eight to ten beers. As they drove back into town, they opened the last three beers. Then Gonzalez noticed the party at the warehouse. They "decided to stop and check out the party."

Sometime after 1:00 a.m., Mendoza, Valdez, and Gonzalez approached the warehouse with beer cans in their hands. Mary did not know them. She noticed immediately that they were "very drunk" and "belligerent," and she indicated to her brother David that she did not want them admitted to the party. The three approached David "standing shoulder to shoulder" and attempted to gain admittance to the party. David noticed they were intoxicated. A contentious verbal exchange followed, which led to a physical confrontation between David and Gonzalez and Mendoza. David and Gonzalez struggled, and David struck Gonzalez at least once with his hand, in which he held a flashlight. Gonzalez sustained a head injury that bled profusely. Mendoza was also injured. David, Mary, and their friends asked Valdez, Mendoza, and Gonzalez to leave. Further verbal confrontations followed. Valdez, Mendoza, and Gonzalez threatened to come back with a gun and kill the others. They then got into a car and left.

Valdez and Mendoza took Gonzalez to a nearby hospital, arriving at 1:36 a.m., and left him there with Smith. Gonzalez had a lacerated scalp, not a serious injury. On the way to the hospital, Valdez indicated that he wanted to return to the warehouse and fight the "bouncer." He told Mendoza to drive from the hospital to a house where defendant Valencia, one of Valdez's best friends, was staying. Valdez was still intoxicated. Valdez awakened Valencia and told him what had happened. He said he wanted to go back to the party and fight with "some people," and that they would need protection because "the people at the party were very big." They drove to Valencia's mother's house, where Valencia and Valdez both obtained "sticks." Then they went to the warehouse.

David left the party at Mary's request. Around 1:30 a.m., she decided to lock all the doors and not let anyone else in. A short while later, Valdez, Mendoza, and Valencia arrived at the warehouse, each with a weapon in his hand. Another verbal confrontation ensued, with the three outside and the partygoers inside the warehouse. Valdez beat on the door with a tire iron, demanded to be let in, and threatened to "kill you all." He also went over to a BMW parked in front of the warehouse and punctured its tires. He struck another vehicle with his tire iron. The three men then left. Valdez was still angry and wanted to return to the warehouse. Valdez and Mendoza mentioned Valencia's rifle, and Valencia decided to get it "for protection." They drove to Valencia's mother's house, where Valencia retrieved a loaded .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle. Valencia put the rifle in the trunk. They returned to the warehouse. When they arrived, Valencia put the rifle in the backseat of the car.

A little after 2:00 a.m., the partygoers inside the warehouse heard defendants banging on the large metal roll-up door to the warehouse. The music was turned off while the banging continued. It lasted for about four minutes. About five minutes after it stopped, the music resumed. A few minutes later, Christ and DeHaan went outside. They had heard that vehicles were being vandalized. The three defendants confronted them with weapons. Christ and DeHaan started to back away. Valdez gestured with his hand towards Valencia, apparently pointing in the direction from which defendants had come. Valencia returned to the car and retrieved his rifle. Christ asked them to leave. Valencia approached DeHaan and pointed the rifle at his chest. DeHaan raised his hands "in a passive surrendering motion." Valdez poked his stick-like weapon at DeHaan about a foot away from DeHaan's face. DeHaan backed away from Valdez, and DeHaan and Christ ran towards the back of the warehouse.

After DeHaan and Christ ran a short distance, they heard about 10 shots. Valencia fired his rifle at the large metal roll-up door at least 11 times from a distance of between 15 and 30 feet. At least six shots penetrated the door and reached the crowd of dancers inside. One person who was dancing about 10 feet from the door was struck in the head by a bullet and killed. Five others were struck by bullets and injured.

In his defense, Valdez presented evidence of his good character for nonviolence, honesty, truthfulness, and trustworthiness. He also testified, claiming that none of the men had ever made any threats on any of their visits to the warehouse. He admitted he became "real mad" because of the injury to Gonzalez and urged the "bouncer" to fight them. Valdez testified that he had never been in a fight before. He obtained Valencia's assistance because he was afraid that the people at the party would interfere with his desire for vengeance on the bouncer. He wanted Valencia to serve "as a backup" because Valencia "knew how to fight." Valdez understood that the rifle was being brought "for protection." He testified that he could remember coming to the warehouse only twice: first with Gonzalez, and only once with Valencia. In his version of the events, the two visits with Valencia were consolidated into one. He contended that he had banged on the door merely to try to get the "bouncer" to come out and fight him and denied having done anything to the BMW's tires.

Valdez denied making any "signal" for Valencia to fetch his rifle, and he claimed that he was unaware that Valencia was even holding the rifle until he heard the shots. Valdez expressly denied intending for "the building to be shot" or for anyone to be hurt. He also denied knowing that Valencia was going to fire the rifle at the building or at any person. He asserted that his sole purpose was to "fight the bouncer." An expert on the effects of alcohol testified that intoxication can cause memory lapses, and these memory losses are likely to be incomplete so that the person remembers fragments of the events. Such a memory loss might involve the blending of two events into one. However, a memory loss that is self-serving because it eliminates incriminating events is likely to be feigned rather than genuine.

B. Procedural History

As relevant here, an indictment charged defendants Mendoza, Valencia, and Valdez with five counts of attempted murder (Pen Code, §§ 187, 664), 2 and one count each of murder (§ 187) and discharging a firearm at an occupied building (§ 246). The indictment also alleged that Valencia personally used, and each defendant was armed with, a firearm in the commission of the offenses. (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5.) The prosecution proceeded against Valdez solely on the theory that he aided and abetted Valencia.

Valdez asked the court to give four special instructions relating voluntary intoxication to the mental state required for aiding and abetting. The prosecution agreed that some instruction was appropriate but objected to the requested instructions as argumentative and misleading. Ultimately, the court gave this instruction on intoxication: "Under the law, it is the general rule that no act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of being in such condition. [p] Thus, [in] the crime of shooting at an occupied building ... the fact that the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated is not a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
535 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2016
    ...Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560 [199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318] (Beeman ), emphasis omitted.)" (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1123, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735 (Mendoza ).) " ‘[A] defendant whose liability is predicated on his status as an aider and abettor need not have......
  • People v. Bedolla
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2018
    ...whether a defendant formed the specific intent required for the crime charged. (§ 29.4, subd. (b); People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1125, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735 ( Mendoza ).) In this case, the prosecution advanced two theories by which the jury could convict Bedolla of at......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2018
    ...of the offense." ( People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 561, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318 ; accord, People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1123, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735.) As we explain, the court instructed the jury correctly regarding aiding and abetting. It also gave a co......
  • People v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2014
    ...Court decisions— People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 74 P.3d 176 ( Lee ) and People v . Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735 ( Mendoza )—require jurors to be instructed that a defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting a specific intent crime ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, §10:111.7 People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, §§5:61, 5:100, 5:100.3 People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, §9:86.1 People v. Meneley (1972) 29 Cal.App. 3d 41, 60, §9:28.1 People v. Merced (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1024, §9:131 People v. Merlen (Not Repo......
  • Trial defense of dui in California
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...found in CALCRIM 3426. See CALCRIM 3426 for jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. For more information: People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114. TRIAL DEFENSE OF DUI IN CALIFORNIA §9:86 California Drunk Driving Law 9-132 §9:86.2 Involuntary Intoxication One who is unknowingly drugged......
  • § 30.05 ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: MENS REA
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 30 Liability For the Acts of Others
    • Invalid date
    ...(Pa. 2014) (conviction based on accomplice liability must be based on "offense-specific analysis of intent").[79] . People v. Mendoza, 959 P.2d 735, 744 (Cal. 1998) ("To be culpable, an aider and abettor must intend not only the act [of assistance] but also the additional criminal act the p......
  • § 30.05 Accomplice Liability: Mens Rea
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 30 Liability for the Acts of Others
    • Invalid date
    ...1197 (Pa. 2014) (conviction based on accomplice liability must be based on "offense-specific analysis of intent").[79] People v. Mendoza, 959 P.2d 735, 744 (Cal. 1998) ("To be culpable, an aider and abettor must intend not only the act [of assistance] but also the additional criminal act th......
  • 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