People v. Rangel

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE RANGEL, Defendant and Appellant.

F083675

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

May 8, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. No F19904080 F. Brian Alvarez, Judge.

Janet J. Gray, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. French and Darren K. Indermill Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

HILL P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Jose Rangel shot and killed Augustine Alvarado Trujillo on the side of a road as Trujillo's wife and son watched. A jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder and child abuse and found true the allegation that defendant personally discharged a firearm. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 40 years to life in prison.

Defendant contends on appeal that (1) the evidence is insufficient to disprove that he killed in self-defense; (2) the prosecution violated his constitutional right to due process and state discovery rules by the late production of five reports that included ballistics and evidence that Trujillo possessed a knife at the time of his death; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument when she stated that defendant contrived his testimony in response to defendant's review of discovery and the testimony of witnesses in the courtroom (4) the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument when she argued that defendant was poor and killed Trujillo because Trujillo did not share a taco with defendant, and that these comments were based upon cultural bias and violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA; Pen. Code, § 745);^[1](5) the trial court's exclusion of Trujillo's blood-alcohol content during cross-examination of a forensic pathologist violated defendant's rights to due process and confrontation; (6) the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to impeach defendant with the conduct underlying his Washington misdemeanor conviction for harassment because it is not a crime of moral turpitude and the probative value of the conviction was outweighed by its prejudicial effect; (7) the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion to preclude reference to Trujillo as "the victim"; (8) the trial court was unaware of its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement necessitating that we remand for resentencing; and, in supplemental briefing, (9) the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that defendant had the right to defend his property against harm (CALCRIM No. 5.06).

We agree that defendant should be resentenced because the trial court was unaware of its discretion to substitute a lesser firearm enhancement but otherwise affirm the judgment.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The District Attorney of Fresno County filed an information on May 25, 2021, charging defendant with murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 2), criminal threats (§ 422; count 3), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 4). The information also alleged defendant personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) as to count 1, used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) as to count 3, and possessed one prior "strike" conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.

Prior to trial, the trial court granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss counts 3 and 4 and the prior strike conviction allegation (having discovered that the conviction was actually a misdemeanor). On October 20, 2021, after a 12-day trial, the jury acquitted defendant of premeditated murder but convicted him of second degree murder and child abuse and found true the firearm enhancement.

The trial court sentenced defendant on November 18, 2021, to 15 years to life in prison, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life as to count 1 and a concurrent term of two years as to count 2. The court also ordered defendant to pay $ 7,500 to the California Victim Compensation Board as victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), $60 in criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373), and $80 in court operations assessments (§ 1465.8).

Defendant timely appealed on December 15, 2021.

FACTS

I. Prosecution evidence.

A. Juan Guzman

At approximately 12:50 a.m. on June 17, 2019, Fresno County Deputy Sheriff Juan Guzman responded to a shooting in Three Rocks. Dispatch had notified him that a man had been shot in the chest. The scene of the shooting was a large dirt lot located between two mobile home residences, one of which belonged to Trujillo's father. Guzman noted that it was very dark, Trujillo's truck was still running, and the headlights were still on. Trujillo had three gunshot wounds to his chest and one to his neck. Guzman assisted Trujillo's wife, N.A., in administering CPR. However, Trujillo was pronounced dead at 1:07 a.m. by the emergency technicians who had arrived. Guzman did not see any weapons around Trujillo's body.

B. G.A.

G.A., the 16-year-old son of Trujillo, testified that on the day Trujillo died, G.A. accompanied Trujillo, N.A. (G.A.'s mother), and G.A.'s sister to G.A.'s grandfather's property in Three Rocks. Mario C., G.A.'s uncle, also lived there. Approximately 15 to 20 family members were also present on the property to celebrate Father's Day (June 16, 2019), including Trujillo's brothers and sisters and their children. Trujillo drove with G.A. to the property in Trujillo's truck and hauling a horse trailer while N.A. drove a second vehicle to transport G.A.'s sister who was in a wheelchair.

Trujillo assisted other family members to ride the horse during the gathering. G.A. spent a lot of time playing soccer with his cousins, ate for an hour or two, and talked. G.A. did not remember whether any of the adults were drinking alcohol that day, although they did at other times. No one shot a firearm during the party or engaged in target practice.

G.A. thought that they left his grandfather's house at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. Just after leaving in separate cars, N.A. called Trujillo and G.A. heard Trujillo tell N.A. that he did not want to drive and, because G.A. did not have a license, Trujillo intended to drive back to the grandfather's property, leave the horse and trailer, and drive with N.A. and G.A.'s sister. Trujillo pulled to the side of the road, and G.A. saw a car on their left. G.A. saw a man approach Trujillo's truck door. Trujillo lowered the window and greeted the man from inside the truck. G.A. had never seen the man before, and Trujillo did not appear to know the man either.

G.A. did not hear much of the conversation because of road noises from a nearby highway and the truck's air conditioning. However, it did not appear to G.A. that the conversation was tense. Trujillo and the man discussed that the man had problems with Mario, G.A.'s uncle. Trujillo told the man that he did not want problems with anyone in the family. Neither individual seemed angry, and the conversation did not appear heated. Approximately three to five minutes later, Trujillo got out of the truck and the man took a step back because "he probably thought [Trujillo] was going to do something to him, but [Trujillo] just wanted to talk, that's it." Trujillo did not turn off the truck or the headlights.

G.A. described the conversation as normal in tone until the man got mad and reacted. Trujillo did not behave aggressively. After refreshing his memory from a detective's report, G.A. explained that Trujillo told the man that he did not want any problems with anyone, and the man responded that he did not want to have problems with Mario. Trujillo replied that he wanted to clear things up a bit so that there would be no problems after he left. After approximately one or two minutes, the man told Trujillo, "I do not want to shoot you, but if I have to I will." The man pulled out a weapon that he possessed, shot Trujillo, and ran away. The man did not display the firearm until just before he fired it at Trujillo.

G.A. never saw Trujillo with any kind of weapon that evening and did not know whether Trujillo owned a gun, but later, G.A. admitted he had seen Trujillo with firearms at other times. However, G.A. did not know that Trujillo possessed a firearm or ammunition in the truck. He never saw either Trujillo or the man hit or touch each other while conversing. The man did not go back to his own truck to retrieve anything before firing the weapon.

G.A. testified that N.A. had stopped her vehicle near the truck and, after the shooting, she ran to Trujillo and instructed G.A. to drive her vehicle and his sister back to his grandfather's property.

C. N.A.

Trujillo's wife, N.A., testified that the family had gathered on June 16, 2019, to celebrate Father's Day at her father-in-law's property. N.A.'s sister-in-law also lived there with her husband, Mario, and their children. N.A. testified that Trujillo and G.A. drove there in a truck with the horse trailer so that family members could ride their horse. The children played while the adults grilled, cooked, and conversed. Trujillo and Mario drank beer. Rodrigo R., N.A.'s cousin, also arrived at the party to eat. Rodrigo spoke with Trujillo and Mario.

While Trujillo and Mario had previously shot firearms during a New Year's celebration, they did not shoot guns that day. N.A. did not see anyone with firearms that day, although Trujillo did own...