PEOPLE v. PEREZRespondent’s Additional Authorities LetterCal.October 27, 2017Supreme Court of California Supreme Court of California Jorge FE. Navarrele, Court Administrator and Clerk Jorge E. Navarrete, Court Administrator and Clerk Electronically RECEIVED on 10/27/2017 at 3.32.24 PM Electronically FILED on 10/27/2017 by April Boelk, Deputy Clerk XAVIER BECERRA State of California Attorney General DEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE 455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE,SUITE 11000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-7004SUPREME COURT COPY i5 Telephone: (415) 703-5855 Facsimile: (415) 703-1234 E-Mail: John.Deist@doj.ca.gov October 27, 2017 Jorge E. Navarrete Court Administrator and Clerk of the Supreme Court Supreme Court of the State of California 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 RE: People v. Joseph Perez Supreme Court California S.F., San Francisco Branch Case No. 8104144 Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. 990453-3 Dear Mr. Navarrete: This case is scheduled for oral argument on Tuesday, November7, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in Sacramento. Forthe court’s consideration, the People cite the following authorities decided after the submission of the respondent’s brief. Argument I: People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 233 & fn. 10 [where practicable, the trial court must conductvoirdire in the presence ofother jurorsin all criminal cases, including death-penalty cases; error does not support reversal absent a miscarriage ofjustice]; People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 432-433 [same]; People y. Leon (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 569, 584-589 [reasonable limits on length and scopeofvoir dire are permissible]; People v. Capistrano (2016) 59 Cal.4th 830, 854-864 [reiterating the deference owedto trial court’s rulings on attitudes of prospective jurors toward the death penalty, and confirming that sequestered voir dire is not required]. ArgumentII: People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1003-1024 [no conflict of interest between the defendant andhistrial attorneys merely because the attorneys had been jointly implicated in a conspiracy to murder a witness]. ArgumentIII: People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 773-774 [“Ifa judge refuses or fails to disqualify herself, a party may seek the judge’s disqualification”; failure to move for recusal under CCP § 170.6 forfeits a defendant’s appellate argument that the trial judge was biased]; People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 979 [a defendant who objected to a judge’s participation in the proceedings and merely failed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under CCP § 170.3 mayraise a narrow due process DEATH PENALTY claim on appeal, but a defendant may not“play fast and loose with the administration of justice” by agreeing to allow a judge to preside over the case andlater assert the judge was biased]; People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 626 [“Defendant may not go to trial before a judge and gamble on a favorable result, and then assert for the first time on appeal that the judge wasbiased”]. Arguments IV and XI: People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 434 [trial court did not apply an unfair double standard in ruling on for-cause challenges to pro-death and pro-life jury candidates]; People v. Romero (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 44 [defendant’s claim that seated jurors should have been dismissed for cause becauseof their opinions on the death penalty was forfeited because the defendant did not use an available peremptory challenge to removethat juror or object to the jury asfinally constituted]. Arguments V and VIII: People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1103 {defendant’s failure to request a continuance to meet new evidence wasfatal to claim of a prosecutor’s late discovery; “It is defendant’s burden to show that the failure to timely comply with any discovery order is prejudicial, and that a continuance would not have cured the harm.”]; People v. Williams (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1166, 1185-1186 [same]. Argument VI(a): People v. Cage (2015) 62 Cal.4th 256, 282 [guilt-phase testimony by family members of the victim was not impermissible victim-impact evidence; the evidence explained inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony and provided context and a timeline of events]. ArgumentVII: People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 88-89 [excusal of a seated juror after she fell ill was permissible, even though she might have recovered quickly; in the right circumstances, an absence of even a day or less may warrant excusal]; Peoplev. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 433 [a prospective juror whois unable to reach a decision is unable to perform the duties of a juror and may be removed for cause]. Argument XIX: People v. Johnson (2016) 62 Cal.4th 600, 649-650 [victim impact evidenceis admissible in California, nothwithstanding contrary policies in otherstates]. Sincerely, /s/ John H. Deist JOHN H. DEIST Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 136469 For XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General SF2002XS0001 21038655.docx DECLARATION OF SERVICE Case Name: People v. Joseph Perez No.: S104144 I declare: Iam employedin the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a memberofthe California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and nota party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collecting and processing electronic and physical correspondence. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same dayin the ordinary course of business. Correspondencethatis submitted electronically is transmitted using the TrueFiling electronic filing system. Participants whoare registered with TrueFiling will be served electronically. Participants in this case who are not registered with TrueFiling will receive hard copies of said correspondence through the mail via the United States Postal Service or a commercialcarrier. On October 27, 2017, I electronically served the attached LETTER TO JORGEE, NAVARRETE, ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURTbytransmitting a true copyvia this Court’s TrueFiling system. Because one or moreofthe participants in this case have notregistered with the Court’s TrueFiling system or are unable to receive electronic correspondence, on October 27, 2017, I placed a true copy thereof enclosedin a sealed envelope in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102-7004, addressed as follows: A. Richard Ellis Attorney at Law 75 Margee Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Email Address: a.r.ellis@att.net (Via TrueFiling) Scott Kaufman Attorney at Law California Appellate Project 101 SecondStreet, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 EmailAddress:filing@capsf.org (Via TrueFiling) Douglass MacMaster Acting District Attorney Contra Costa County District Attorney's P.O. Box 670 Martinez, CA 94553 EmailAddress: appellate.pleading@conracostada.org (Via TrueFiling) Clerk of the Court Contra Costa County Superior Court Wakefield Taylor Courthouse 725 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553-1233 (Via U.S. Mail) I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawsof the State of California the foregoingis true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 27, 2017, at San Francisco, California. S. Chiang /s/ S. Chiang Declarant Signature $F2002XS0001 21038669.doc
