The instructions required the jury to find, among other elements, that Solis (1) had knowledge of Moffat's unlawful purpose, (2) had intent to encourage or facilitate the commissionof the crime, and (3) aided, promoted or encouraged (by act or advice) the commission of the crime. Contrary to petitioner's claim, if the jury had believed Solis' testimony, then it could not have found him guilty of aiding and abetting the target crime under the instructions given. 4 However, the jury instructions belie that assertion. Solis argues that he was denied due process because the instructions allowed the jury to convict him of murder without finding that he acted with the requisite intent to aid and abet the predicate crime. Where the jury verdict is complete, but based upon ambiguous instructions, the federal court, in a habeas petition, will not disturb the verdict unless " `there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way' that violates the Constitution." Estelle v. Gonzalez fully adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and denied the petition. 3 On January 12, 1998, United States District Court Judge Irma E. Battaglia prepared a Report and Recommendation, recommending denial of those claims, respectively, because: (1) the court's failure to instruct the jury on the predicate or target crime for purposes of aider and abettor liability was harmless error (2) the trial court's failure to instruct on lesser included and lesser related offenses did not result in a due process violation and (3) Solis did not exhaust his cumulative error claim at the state level. On December 19, 1995, Solis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in United States District Court, Southern District of California, alleging that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the predicate or target crime for purposes of aider and abettor liability, failure to instruct on lesser included and lesser related offenses, and other errors, individually and cumulatively, denied him due process. On October 3, 1994, the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. On March 3, 1994, the California Supreme Court denied Solis' petition for review. That court affirmed his conviction on November 22, 1993. Solis appealed, raising a number of issues, which the California Court of Appeal categorized as (1) error in the exclusion of certain evidence (2) miscellaneous instructional error and (3) instructional error in failing to submit to the jury instructions pertaining to the "predicate" or "target" offense giving rise to aiding and abetting liability. Ultimately, the jury found Solis guilty of second degree murder. The judge refused, and instructed the jury only on first degree murder and second degree murder under the doctrine of "natural and probable consequences." 2 During deliberation the jury asked the judge for instructions on a charge not involving murder, which the judge declined to give. Solis' attorney asked the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser included crime of voluntary manslaughter, and the lesser related charges of assault, assault with a deadly weapon and exhibiting a firearm in a vehicle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |