Renteria

People v. Renteria

Good Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 287·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 1176·2001 Daily Journal DAR 11689·93 Cal. App. 4th 552·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9394
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 2001B146784California3,271 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Defendant appeals his carjacking and robbery convictions. He raises three issues, but we need only discuss one, since that one requires reversal. The trial court substituted in an alternate juror to replace a juror who was ill, but failed to give the newly constituted jury the mandatory instruction that it disregard its previous deliberations and begin deliberations anew. That is constitutional error under the California Constitution, and requires reversal in this case under the standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].

Factual and Procedural Summary

Francisco Gonzalez returned home in his sports utility vehicle shortly before 10:00 p.m. on a fall evening. He exited the vehicle to open the driveway gate. Turning back to the car, he saw a person some 11 feet away pointing a gun towards his face. The person was wearing a white T-shirt and black baggie pants. The man said, “What’s up” and cocked the gun. Gonzalez said “Be cool, be cool” and backed into the house. The man got into Gonzalez’s vehicle and drove it off. Gonzalez called 911 to report the theft.

The vehicle was equipped with a Lo-Jack device, which emits a signal enabling police to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.