Stallworth

Timothy Stallworth was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 1 § 187, subd. (a)), three counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), three counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling or vehicle (§ 246), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242). On appeal, Stallworth contends that his convictions should be reversed because (1) his extrajudicial statements should have been suppressed; (2) the redaction of his statements pursuant to People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 353 , 407 P.2d 265 ] (Aranda) and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ] (Bruton) distorted his testimony and violated due process and Evidence Code section 356; and (3) defective jury instructions were given. Stallworth also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings on the section 186.22 enhancement with respect to counts 1 through 7, and identifies two sentencing errors. We reverse the convictions on counts 1 through 7 but otherwise affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Two incidents, on October 10 and 11, 2003, gave rise to the instant prosecution.

I.…

Timothy Stallworth was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, [1] § 187, subd. (a)), three counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), three counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling or vehicle (§ 246), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242). On appeal, Stallworth contends that his convictions should be reversed because (1) his extrajudicial statements should have been suppressed; (2) the redaction of his statements pursuant to People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 353 , 407 P.2d 265 ] ( Aranda ) and Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ] ( Bruton ) distorted his testimony and violated due process and Evidence Code section 356; and (3) defective jury instructions were given. Stallworth also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on the section 186.22 enhancement with respect to counts 1 through 7, and identifies two sentencing errors. We reverse the convictions on counts 1 through 7 but otherwise affirm.

Two incidents, on October 10 and 11, 2003, gave rise to the instant prosecution.

Assailants in a white Tahoe [2]…

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s

decision to reverse Timothy Stallworth’s convictions for murder, attempted murder (three counts) and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (three counts) in connection with the October 10, 2003 freeway shootings.

In its recent opinion in People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 , 181 P.3d 947 ] (Lewis) the California Supreme Court explained, “Severance may be necessary when a defendant’s confession cannot be redacted to protect a codefendant’s rights without prejudicing the defendant. [Citation.] A defendant is prejudiced in this context when the editing of his statement distorts his role or makes an exculpatory statement inculpatory.” (Id. at p. 457.) The redactions here neither distorted Stallworth’s role in the murder and attempted murders on October 10, 2003 nor made his exculpatory statement inculpatory—in both the original and redacted versions he insisted he was lying down in the far backseat of the Tahoe, did not participate in the shootings and was unaware his associates were armed until he heard the gunfire. Accordingly, I do not believe it was prejudicial to jointly try Stallworth and Myron Davis and to…