People v. Sarabia

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed Ricardo Sarabia’s convictions for murder, attempted murder, witness dissuasion, and felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm offenses. It rejected challenges involving the use of the term “moniker,” hearsay and discovery rulings, jury instructions, Marsden and Faretta motions, admission of a jail call, sufficiency of the evidence, and consecutive sentencing. The court remanded for correction of the abstract of judgment and calculation of custody credits.

Holdings

1. A single use of the word moniker, without evidence that the jury understood it as gang terminology, did not deny Sarabia a fair trial and did not require a mistrial.
2. Sarabia failed to demonstrate reversible error in admitting Ramon's preliminary-hearing testimony or impeaching Romero with prior inconsistent statements because he did not engage the trial court's reasoning or provide a reasoned challenge.
3. The trial court properly refused to exclude the photographs because the prosecution either produced the phone photographs early or promptly disclosed the residence photographs after learning of them.
4. The trial court was not required to give a heat-of-passion voluntary-manslaughter instruction because Sarabia presented insufficient evidence that an objective person would have been provoked to the requisite degree by the dispute over his property.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sarabia's midtrial Marsden motion as untimely.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sarabia's midtrial request for self-representation because the request was untimely and his waiver was not shown to be knowing.
7. The trial court properly admitted Sarabia's call to his sister because the request to send a message signed by Clover was highly probative of his nickname and only minimally prejudicial.
8. Substantial evidence supported the first degree murder and attempted-murder convictions because Sarabia's sequential, continued attacks provided sufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation.
9. Substantial evidence supported Sarabia's conviction for dissuading a witness because the evidence supported the inference that he searched for and shot Romero to silence her as a witness.
10. Sarabia forfeited his claim that the trial court failed to explain its consecutive-sentence decision, and he did not overcome the presumption that the court knew and followed its discretionary authority under Penal Code section 669.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to Sarabia's nickname as a moniker after gang evidence had been excluded.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted testimony from Ramon and Romero, including Ramon's preliminary-hearing testimony and Romero's prior inconsistent statements.
3. Whether the prosecution violated its discovery obligations by producing photographs from Sarabia's phone and Arizona residence.
4. Whether the trial court was required to instruct the jury on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter.
5. Whether the trial court properly denied Sarabia's midtrial Marsden motion to substitute counsel and Faretta motion for self-representation.
6. Whether the trial court properly admitted Sarabia's jail call to his sister.
7. Whether substantial evidence supported the first degree murder and attempted-murder convictions.
8. Whether substantial evidence supported the conviction for dissuading a witness.
9. Whether Sarabia forfeited and otherwise failed to establish error in the imposition of consecutive sentences.
10. Whether any trial errors were cumulatively prejudicial.

Disposition

remanded