Summary
**Topics:** Accomplice testimony corroboration (Pen. Code §1111); sufficiency of evidence; double jeopardy; youth offender parole hearings (Pen. Code §§3051, 4801); *Franklin* remand for juvenile sentencing record; firearm enhancement discretion (Pen. Code §12022.53(h)). **Holdings:** The California Supreme Court held that the accomplice testimony against defendant Barajas was insufficiently corroborated, reversing his convictions and ordering a judgment of acquittal under double jeopardy principles. For defendant Rodriguez, the court held that his 50-years-to-life sentence did not render his Eighth Amendment claim moot; instead, he was entitled to a *Franklin* remand to supplement the record with youth-related factors relevant to his future youth offender parole hearing, and the trial court must also consider the applicability of Penal Code §12022.53(h) (Senate Bill 620) regarding firearm enhancements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the accomplice testimony against Barajas was sufficiently corroborated to support his convictions.
- Whether Rodriguez's constitutional challenge to his 50-years-to-life sentence was moot following the enactment of youth offender parole hearing statutes, and whether he was entitled to a remand to make a record of youth-related factors.
Holdings
- The accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated; the non-accomplice evidence did not tend to connect Barajas to the crime. Therefore, his convictions must be reversed and a judgment of acquittal entered.
- Rodriguez's Eighth Amendment challenge is moot due to his eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing under Senate Bill No. 260. However, he is entitled to a remand to the trial court to supplement the record with information relevant to his eventual parole hearing, and the Court of Appeal must also consider the applicability of section 12022.53(h) to his sentence.
Key quotations
“Section 1111 states: 'A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.'” (4)
“The non-accomplice evidence did not tend to connect Barajas to the accomplice, his codefendant, or the victims. Nor did it tend to connect Barajas to the Chevy Blazer used during the shooting, the murder weapon, or any of the bullets and shall [sic] casings that were recovered.” (5)
“We agree with Rodriguez that he is entitled to remand for an opportunity to supplement the record with information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing.” (9)
Factual background
On May 26, 2004, Ernestina Tizoc was killed in a drive-by shooting in Oregon Park in Modesto, a hangout for Norteño gang members. The shooters were in a white Chevrolet Blazer, made gang signs, and yelled a cry for the Sureño gang. Defendants Rodriguez (age 15) and Barajas (age 16) were detained at a nearby residence. At trial, accomplice Garcia testified that he, Rodriguez, Barajas, and others drove through the park looking for Norteños, and Barajas shouted 'puro Sur' and fired multiple shots. Tizoc died from gunshot wounds. The only non-accomplice evidence connecting Barajas to the crime was his gang membership; no physical evidence or eyewitness testimony tied him to the shooting. Rodriguez was also convicted based on accomplice testimony and other evidence.
Procedural history
Defendants were convicted in the Stanislaus County Superior Court and sentenced to 50 years to life. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review, transferred the case back for reconsideration in light of People v. Franklin and People v. Romero & Self, and the Court of Appeal again affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review again.
Remand instructions
For Barajas: Remand to the Court of Appeal with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. For Rodriguez: Remand to the Court of Appeal with instructions to remand to the trial court to provide the parties with an opportunity to supplement the record with information relevant to Rodriguez's youth offender parole hearing, and to consider the applicability of section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to his sentence.