Hartsch

People v. Hartsch

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673·2010 Cal. LEXIS 5969·2010 D.A.R. 9870·49 Cal. 4th 472·232 P.3d 663
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 28, 2010S074804California17,898 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Defendant Cisco James Hartsch was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. As to all counts, the jury found that he personally used a firearm. It returned a verdict of death, based on the special circumstance of multiple murder. This appeal is automatic. The trial court also imposed a determinate sentence, which defendant does not challenge. We affirm.

I. FACTS

The facts are summarized here. Further factual and procedural details are provided in the discussion of defendant’s claims on appeal.

A. Guilt Phase

1. Prosecution

Early on the morning of June 15, 1995, well before dawn, defendant and his friend Frank Castaneda left a party to go target shooting in an orange grove near the town of Highgrove in Riverside County. Defendant, who was drunk and may have smoked some methamphetamine, took his .22-caliber revolver. He was 18 years old; Castaneda, 20. At trial, Castaneda provided the following account of the ensuing events.

As Castaneda was driving to the orange grove in a stolen Honda, defendant fired four or five shots at a house. He had some problems with the family that lived there. When they got to the…

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.