People v. Guerra

77 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. JONES (BRYAN MAURICE)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed September 28, 2006

    This Court in Jurado and Guerra also rejected arguments attacking instructions addressing willfully false witnesses (CALJIC No. 2.21.2), weighing conflicting testimony (CALJIC No. 2.22) andthe instruction defining premeditation and deliberation (CALJIC No.8.20). (People v. Jurado, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 126-127; People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1139; People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 158-159 [specifically rejecting attack on CALJIC No. 2.21.2].) Appellant’s arguments attacking these instructions should be rejected.

  2. PEOPLE v. CAPISTRANO

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed August 16, 2007

    As for appellant’s claim that California’s use of the death penalty violates international law, particularly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (““ICCPR”) (AOB 267-268, 270-271), this Court has rejected the contention that the death penalty violates international law, evolving international norms of decency, or the ICCPR. (See People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 439-440; People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 403-404; see also People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1164 [international law does not prohibit a sentence of death rendered in accordance with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements]; People v. Smith (2005) 35 Cal.4th 334, 375 [same]; People v. Hillhouse, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 511 [same].) Appellant’s claim must therefore be rejected.

  3. PEOPLE v. EDWARDS (ROBERT)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed February 28, 2008

    Edwards forfeits this prosecutorial misconduct claim on appeal because he did not request that the jury be admonished to disregard the prosecutor's question. (People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1124; People v. Ayala, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 284; People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 820.) Contrary to his assertions, a prompt admonition would have cured the harm caused by any misconduct. (People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 462; People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1333.)

  4. PEOPLE v. ROMERO (ORLANDO) & SELF (CHRISTOPHER)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed February 27, 2008

    ) On appellate review, a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed unless the court exercisedits discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd mannerthat resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1113, citing People v. Rodriguez, supra, 20 Cal.4th 1, 9- 10.) In general, while a defendant may offer evidence ofhis upbringing or relationships with family members, sympathy for a defendant’s family members is not a proper matterin mitigation,as it does notrelate to the circumstances of the crime or background ofthe accused.

  5. PEOPLE v. ROMERO (ORLANDO) & SELF (CHRISTOPHER)

    Appellant, Orlando Gene Romero, Reply Brief

    Filed May 17, 2011

    "RB 234. Cf. Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1067, 1144-1145 (sametest for state-law error affecting penalty). ’See RB 234 (“Romero hunted three young menlike prey [and] killed them”).

  6. PEOPLE v. SÁNCHEZ (EDGARDO)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed July 12, 2013

    Because sarcasm and other rhetorical devices raay highlight for the jury the improbability of a defendant’s explanation or testimony, their use in cross-examining a defendant is not necessarily- _improper. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1127 [sarcasmduring cross-examination of defendant not misconduct where used as a rhetorical device]; People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 847 [same].} While the prosecutor’s examination was tough, it was otherwise fair and zealous advocacy.

  7. PEOPLE v. MONTES (JOSEPH MANUEL)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed April 19, 2011

    It is reasonably possible that the jury construed these questions in the manner intended by the prosecutor, thereby minimizing the strength of the evidence. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1153 [court decides whether there is “a reasonablepossibility that the jury construed or applied the prosecutor’s comments in an objectionable manner’’].) In a case as closely balanced as this one (see AOBpp.121-130)it is also reasonably possible 176 that any error which detracted from this important evidence in mitigation affected the jury’s decision to return a verdict of death.

  8. PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed October 16, 2006

    | Clark has forfeited his claim that admission of the Soft Warehouse evidence violated Evidence Code section 1101 by failing to object on this groundin thetrial court. In order to preserve a claim that the introduction of character evidence violated Evidence Code section 1101, a defendant must make a timely and specific objection on that groundin thetrial court. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1117.) Although Clark objected to the Soft Warehouse evidence on a numberof grounds, he never identified Evidence Code section 1101 as one of them. (12 CT 4386-4391, 4557-4566.)

  9. PEOPLE v. SÁNCHEZ (EDGARDO)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed October 16, 2014

    The casesit cites for this proposition are inapposite. In People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1127, this Court rejected the defendant’s argumentthat a specific question was argumentative because the question highlighted the improbability of specific testimony the defendanthasjust given. In People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 845-847, the Court found that given the evidence and defense argument,the prosecutor’s arguments referring to counselin the first person and alluding to the lack of evidentiary support for the defenses, were rhetorical devices properly usedto focus the jury’s attention on strong evidenceofguilt and the weak defense case.

  10. PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed June 12, 2013

    Appellant points to potential reasons the jury would have discredited Witness One™* (AOB 56 fn. 14), as well as Owens’ identification (AOB 53- 55), but this Court cannot “substitute its judgmentfor that of the jury” as to the credibility or reliability of Witness One, Owens, or any other witness at appellant’s trial (People v. Ceja, supra, 4 Cal.4th at 1143), even where a witness’s testimony “““‘is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment[.]’” (People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1141, quoting People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 403.) Appellant also complains that appellant’s possession of Luna’s telephone, when considered alone,is insufficient to show he took Luna’s telephone when he was murdered.