Sorrels

People v. Sorrels

Good Law
146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 204·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 916·208 Cal. App. 4th 1155·2012 WL 3637261
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2012No. B224166California4,538 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bigelow, J.

*

FACTS

Laura Sanchez was shot as she stopped her blue Astrovan in front of her home on Long Beach Avenue on March 18, 2007. Her son, Jose B., was sitting in the passenger seat and saw a white car stop on the other side of the van. Sanchez told Jose to “duck down.” As he got out of the van, he heard two sets of gunshots, the first set very loud and the second set less so. He dropped to the ground and began to crawl towards the driveway.

Sanchez’s nieces, Sandy and Jeanette C., were sitting inside their mother’s SUV, which was parked in Sanchez’s driveway. Both girls heard a set of very loud gunshots coming from a white passenger car and a second set that was not as loud coming from a gray truck. Sandy saw gunshots come from a white four-door car that had stopped behind her aunt’s van. She and Jeanette also saw gunshots come from a gray SUV that had pulled up next to their car. The cars drove away after the shooting. A 911 caller reported that a gray Chevrolet Trailblazer with two male Hispanics in it was involved in the shooting.

Sanchez died from a gunshot wound to her left lung and heart, which caused massive hemorrhaging and death within two minutes. The bullet…

Concurring Opinion

Rubin, J.

I concur in the affirmance of the convictions of all three defendants and specifically with the following parts of the Discussion in the unpublished portion of the majority opinion: Sorrels’s Appeal—parts I., II., HI., and IV.; Jenkins’s Appeal—parts 1, Ü.B., III., IV, V, VI. only; and Garrett’s Appeal—parts I., II. and III. I write separately to express my view that the trial court overstepped its bounds in detailing the prosecution’s case to the panel of prospective jurors. For that reason, I do not agree with the majority’s analysis in part n.A. of Jenkins’s appeal. However, I acknowledge that the error was harmless.

“Jurors rely with great confidence on the fairness of judges, and upon the correctness of their views expressed during trials.” (People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1233 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 799 , 129 P.3d 10 ] (Sturm).) As Justice Stanley Mosk wrote in his dissent in People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340 , 842 P.2d 1100 ] (Proctor): “A judge must, of course, cleave fast to the judicial role and not adopt that of an advocate. ...[!]... ‘ “The influence of the trial judge on the jury is necessarily and properly of great weight,” . . . and…

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.