1

Filed 12/2/20 P. v. Jones CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or 

ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JERMAINE JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A155649

 (San Mateo County

 Super. Ct. No. SC081953A)

ORDER MODIFYING 

OPINION AND DENYING 

REHEARING [NO CHANGE 

IN JUDGMENT]

BY THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on November 10, 2020, be 

modified as follows:

1. On page 5, the sentence beginning “Jones relies on cases . . .” and the 

citations that follow it are deleted and replaced with the following:

Jones relies on capital cases holding that “[t]o comply with the 

Eighth Amendment, a state’s capital punishment scheme must 

include an ‘ “objective basis for distinguishing” ’ a capital case 

from a noncapital case. (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 

154; see Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) 446 U.S. 420, 433; People v. 

Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 848–853; People v. Catlin (2001) 

26 Cal.4th 81, 157–159.) 

2. On pages 7 and 8, the following sentence is deleted: “But Jones has not 

asserted any void-for-vagueness claim under the due process clause.” 

That sentence is replaced with the following:
2

But Jones does not argue that section 190.2, subdivision (a)(21) is 

not “definite enough to provide a standard of conduct for those 

whose activities are proscribed,” or that it fails to “provide 

definite guidelines for the police in order to prevent arbitrary and 

discriminatory enforcement,” as a void-for-vagueness claim under 

the due process clause requires. (People v. Heitzman (1994) 9 

Cal.4th 189, 199.) 

These modifications do not change the judgment. 

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________, Acting P.J.
1

Filed 11/10/20 P. v. Jones CA1/2 (unmodified opinion)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JERMAINE JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A155649

 (San Mateo County

 Super. Ct. No. SC081953A)

In August of 2011, Carl Purvis, Jr. was shot and killed while driving 

his car in East Menlo Park. A jury convicted defendant Jermaine Jones of 

first-degree murder, and found true the special circumstance that Jones 

intentionally murdered Purvis by shooting a firearm from a motor vehicle. 

Jones argues that the special circumstance finding must be reversed because 

it duplicated the prosecution’s theory of first-degree murder, and that the 

trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense, in 

admitting certain firearms evidence, and in limiting his counsel’s crossexamination of a prosecution witness. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of June 4, 2011, two masked men put 

a gun to Jones’s head, took his car keys, and stole his car—a red, four-door 

Chrysler with “comb rims.” Jones called 911 and told the dispatcher that he 

did not know the men, but asked police to check for the car on Alberni street 
2

in East Palo Alto. Jones’s girlfriend at the time, Kimberly Brown, would 

later testify that Jones told her that Purvis (known as “Man Man”) was one of 

the carjackers, and a “hater” who “hat[ed] on [Jones] every time [Jones] went 

over to Alberni Street,” where Purvis lived. Later that morning, police 

recovered the car and returned it to Jones. 

On August 18, 2011, around 6:00 p.m., Jose Juan Lopez saw what he 

described as a “red candy”-colored Chrysler—which he later identified as 

Jones’s car—following a Pontiac Grand Am on Plumas Avenue in Menlo 

Park. A surveillance camera from a nearby house also captured Jones’s car 

following Purvis’s car. 

At around 5:55 p.m., Mariela Gonzalez saw Purvis’s car come to a stop

at the intersection of Almanor Avenue and Newbridge Street. She then saw 

Jones’s car, driven by an African-American man with “little to no hair and a 

little heavier-set than the other driver,” pull up next to it. The driver of 

Jones’s car then fired two shots at Purvis’s car, and then Jones’s car “sped off 

really fast.” Purvis’s car stopped on the sidewalk in front a nearby church. 

Purvis was later pronounced dead at the scene. 

On the night of August 22, Jones’s car was towed from an address on 

Shropshire Court in Stockton, and released back to Jones the next day. On 

August 23, Stockton police conducted a stop of the car and arrested Jones for 

Purvis’s murder. Jones had two cell phones and a wallet on his person when 

he was arrested. An August 19 newspaper article about Purvis’s murder was 

subsequently found in the wallet. 

In a search of Jones’s car, a .45-caliber Springfield Armory XD45LE 

handgun was found under the hood and under the air filter. Analysis of the

gun later determined that it had Jones’s fingerprints, palm print, and DNA 
3

on it. Ballistic analysis also determined that the gun had fired bullets 

recovered from Purvis’s body, as well as the door and floorboard of his car. 

A data extraction from an HTC brand phone that Jones had when he 

was arrested produced several images of Jones holding what appeared to be 

the Springfield Armory XD45LE handgun, as well as various firearm related 

searches performed on August 16, including two related to a Springfield 

Armory XD45 handgun. 

On October 16, 2014, an amended indictment was filed charging Jones

with the murder of Purvis (Pen. Code, § 187)

1

(count 1), shooting at an 

occupied vehicle (§ 246) (count 2), and possessing a firearm as a felon 

(§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3). With respect to count 1, the indictment 

further alleged the special circumstance that Jones intentionally murdered 

Purvis by shooting a firearm from a motor vehicle (§§ 190, subd. (d), 190.2, 

subd. (a)(21)) and that Jones personally and intentionally discharged a 

firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The information also alleged a 

prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and 

three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). 

Trial took place in February and March of 2018. 

The prosecution argued that Jones was guilty of first-degree murder 

under two theories—that he premeditated and deliberated before shooting 

Purvis, and that he committed the murder by shooting a firearm from a 

motor vehicle. (See § 189, subd. (a).) 

Jones testified in his own defense. According to Jones, a man named 

“Dollar” had previously expressed interest in buying his car, and on August 

16, had offered to give him a gun and a large quantity of ecstasy pills in 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
4

exchange for the car, and had searched on Jones’s cell phone for the gun to 

see how much it was worth. On the day of the shooting, Dollar came to his 

door with the gun and Jones took pictures with it. Later that day, around 

5:00 p.m., Jones went to the house of a man known as “Stag” and saw Dollar 

again; Dollar asked to test drive the car and was gone about 45 minutes. 

When he returned, he told Jones: “Me and that nigga whip it hard.

[2]

 Just 

got on somebody.” 

Jones also introduced evidence, including the testimony of Menlo Park 

police officer Nicholas Douglas and a letter written by Brian Seefeldt, Wilbert 

Ard’s cellmate in jail, that Ard had confessed to Seefeldt that he had killed 

Purvis because Purvis betrayed the Taliban gang, to which they both 

belonged, and was going to inform the FBI about the gang’s plan to kill 

federal judges.3

On March 9, the jury found Jones guilty on all three counts and found 

true the firearm enhancement and drive-by special circumstance allegations. 

On August 31, the trial court found true the prior conviction allegations. 

On October 19, the trial court sentenced Jones to life without the 

possibility of parole on count 1, five years on count 2 which was imposed and 

stayed under section 654, and two years on count 3, doubled to four years as a 

second strike. The court imposed the 25 year to life section 12022.53, 

subdivision (d) enhancement on count 1 and stayed it on count 2, and 

2 The transcript reflects that Jones said “whip it hard,” but on crossexamination Jones clarified that he said “Wilbert Ard.”

3 Seefeldt was a witness for the defense, who testified he had suffered a 

head injury in 2007 that caused problems with his long-term memory and 

that he did not remember anything about many of the events in question.
5

imposed five years on the prior felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), for a total sentence of 

life without possibility of parole plus 34 years to life. 

Jones appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Jones argues that (1) the special circumstance finding should be 

reversed because it duplicates the requirements for drive-by first-degree 

murder; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct on imperfect selfdefense; (3) the trial court erred in admitting certain firearms evidence; 

(4) the trial court erred in prohibiting defense counsel from asking a 

prosecution witness if the victim had previously shot her brother; and (5) the 

cumulative effect of these errors requires reversal. 

I. The Eighth Amendment’s “Narrowing” Requirement Does Not 

Apply Because Jones Was Not Sentenced to Death

Jones’s first argument is that the special circumstance finding must be 

reversed because it is requires the same elements as the prosecution’s driveby theory of first-degree murder, and thus fails to satisfy the “narrowing” 

requirement of the Eighth Amendment. (See §§ 189, subd. (a), 190.2, 

subd. (a)(21); CALCRIM Nos. 521, 735.) Jones relies on cases holding that 

“[t]o comply with the Eighth Amendment, a state’s capital punishment 

scheme must include an ‘ “objective basis for distinguishing” ’ a capital case 

from a noncapital case. (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 154; see 

Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) 446 U.S. 420, 433.) ‘A legislative definition lacking 

“some narrowing principle” to limit the class of persons eligible for the death 

penalty and having no objective basis for appellate review is deemed to be 

impermissibly vague under the Eighth Amendment.’ (People v. Bacigalupo

(1993) 6 Cal.4th 457, 465.)” (People v. Arce (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 700, 711.) 
6

The Attorney General argues that Jones has waived his Eighth 

Amendment argument because he did not raise it before the trial court. 

However, because Jones also argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing 

to object to his sentence under the Eighth Amendment, we will reach—and 

reject—the argument on the merits. Indeed, as Jones acknowledges, his 

argument has already been rejected in People v. Rodriguez (1998)

66 Cal.App.4th 157, 164 (Rodriguez):

“Defendant initially suggests that section 190.2[, subdivision] (a)(21) 

contains a constitutional infirmity simply because it duplicates the elements 

which defined defendant’s murder as, or ‘elevated’ it to, first degree murder 

by way of the third category defined in section 189.

[4] This suggestion, 

however, has already been decided to have no merit, and we therefore need 

not consider it further. (Lowenfield v. Phelps (1987) 484 U.S. 231[, 246]

[special circumstance of multiple murder may duplicate elements defining 

defendant’s crime as first degree murder]; People v. Edelbacher (1989) 

47 Cal.3d 983, 1023, fn. 12 [rejecting suggestion of similar argument 

regarding ‘lying in wait’ special circumstance].)” 

Jones acknowledges that Rodriguez, and the cases on which it relied, 

rejected his argument, but claims that Rodriguez is no longer valid on this 

point because in People v. Johnson (2016) 62 Cal.4th 600 (Johnson) our

Supreme Court “held that a constitutional challenge to a special 

circumstance for a lack of ‘narrowing’ may be made in a LWOP case.” 

Johnson held no such thing. 

4 Section 189 provides, in relevant part: “[M]urder that is perpetrated 

by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at 

another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is 

murder of the first degree.”
7

In Johnson, the jury convicted the defendant of lying-in-wait firstdegree murder (§ 189, subd. (a)) and found true a lying-in-wait special 

circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and the defendant was sentenced to 

death. (Id. at p. 607.) In concluding that defendant’s conviction did not 

violate the Eighth Amendment, the Johnson court discussed People v. 

Superior Court (Bradway) (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 297 (Bradway), which held

that the lying-in-wait special circumstance was not unconstitutionally vague. 

(Johnson, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 635; Bradway, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 309–311.) Johnson included this footnote regarding Bradway: 

“Because Bradway was sentenced to life without the possibility of 

parole, rather than death, his constitutional challenge to the lying-in-wait 

special circumstance arose as a void-for-vagueness claim under the due 

process clause. (Bradway, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.) However, his 

vagueness challenge echoed the ‘specialized concept of vagueness most clearly 

defined by the [United States] Supreme Court in dealing with Eighth 

Amendment challenges to death penalties.’ (Bradway v. Cate (9th Cir. 2009) 

588 F.3d 990, 991.)” (Johnson, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 635, fn. 4.) 

Thus Johnson—which was a death penalty case—did not hold that an 

Eighth Amendment narrowing claim can be brought where the defendant 

receives a sentence of life without possibility of parole, but rather that such a 

claim takes the form of a void-for-vagueness claim under the due process 

clause. (See Bradway v. Cate, supra, 588 F.3d at p. 991 [“Bradway recognizes 

that he lacks standing for an Eighth Amendment death penalty challenge 

because he was not sentenced to death, see Houston v. Roe [(9th Cir. 1999)] 

177 F.3d 901, 907–908, so he presents his rather specialized vagueness 

challenge to California’s special circumstance under the Due Process 

Clause”].) But Jones has not asserted any void-for-vagueness claim under 
8

the due process clause. Nor could he, because “[o]bjections to vagueness 

under the Due Process Clause rest on the lack of notice, and hence may be 

overcome in any specific case where reasonable persons would know that 

their conduct is at risk.” (Maynard v. Cartwright (1988) 486 U.S. 356, 361; 

see also Kolender v. Lawson (1983) 461 U.S. 352, 357 [invalidating as vague a 

statute that did not “define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness 

that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a 

manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”].) 

And the “conduct to which [section 190.2, subdivision (a)(21)] applies is not in 

doubt.” (Rodriguez, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 171.) In sum, Jones’s 

argument that the special circumstance finding violates the Eighth 

Amendment fails. 

II. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Failing to Instruct on Imperfect 

Self-Defense

Jones next argues that the trial court erred in refusing his request that 

the jury be instructed on imperfect self-defense. Jones contends that the 

evidence supported such an instruction because he believed that Purvis was 

one of the men who stole his car on June 4, 2011, and because he believed 

Purvis was a member of the “Taliban gang,” and thus that he “would have 

been afraid of further armed attack by Purvis, when he saw Purvis’ car 

directly next to his.” 

“California law requires a trial court, sua sponte, to instruct fully on all 

lesser necessarily included offenses supported by the evidence,” which, in a 

murder prosecution, includes “the obligation to instruct on every supportable 

theory of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, not merely 

the theory or theories which have the strongest evidentiary support, or on 

which the defendant has openly relied.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 
9

19 Cal.4th 142, 149.) However, “ ‘[s]uch instructions are required only where 

there is “substantial evidence” from which a rational jury could conclude that 

the defendant committed the lesser offense, and that he is not guilty of the 

greater offense. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 

1263.) On appeal, we review de novo the trial court’s decision not to give a 

particular instruction. (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581, 584.)

The requested jury instruction on imperfect self-defense—CALCRIM 

No. 571—provides that a killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced 

to voluntary manslaughter if the following elements are satisfied: 

“1. The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone 

else/<insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or 

suffering great bodily injury;

“AND

“2. The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly 

force was necessary to defend against the danger;

“BUT

“3. At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.

“Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how 

likely the harm is believed to be.” 

In this case, there is no substantial evidence of either the first or 

second element. The only direct evidence of Jones’s state of mind at the time 

of the shooting was his own testimony, and it was flatly inconsistent with 

self-defense, imperfect or otherwise. As noted, Jones testified that he let 

“Dollar” take his car for a test drive around the time of the shooting, and 

denied both having killed Purvis and having pulled the trigger of a gun on 

August 18, 2011. He also testified that he and Purvis “were never enemies,” 

and denied believing that Purvis was responsible for his June 2011 
10

carjacking. Obviously, all of this is entirely inconsistent with Jones having 

killed Purvis in self-defense. 

Even if the jury did not believe Jones’s testimony, there is no other 

evidence that Jones believed that he was in imminent danger, and no 

evidence that Jones actually believed deadly force was necessary to defend 

against any such danger. That Jones believed Purvis had stolen his car two 

months prior was manifestly insufficient, because the imminent threat 

permitting one to act in self-defense or imperfect self-defense must be 

“ ‘immediate and present. . . . [O]ne that, from appearances, must be 

instantly dealt with.’ ” (People v. Aris (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1187; 

accord, In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 783.) And even if Purvis was 

a member of a gang who normally carried a gun, there is no evidence that 

Jones had any knowledge of that fact, which would in any event have been 

insufficient to justify the instruction. (See People v. Manriquez, supra, 

37 Cal.4th at p. 582 [evidence that victim usually carried a gun did not 

support imperfect self-defense instruction where “the record contains no 

evidence that defendant possessed a similar knowledge or belief”].) There 

was no error in declining to give the requested instruction on imperfect selfdefense. 

III. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Admitting Certain Firearms 

Evidence

Jones next argues that it was error to admit certain firearms evidence, 

invoking the rule that “it is generally error to admit evidence that the 

defendant possessed a weapon that could not have been the one used in the 

charged crime.” (People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 55.) The reason is 

that “such evidence proves only that the defendant is in the habit of 

possessing a deadly weapon and is not probative on the issue of whether he 
11

had possessed the particular weapon involved.” (People v. Gunder (2007)

151 Cal.App.4th 412, 416; see People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 577 

[“When the prosecution relies, however, on a specific type of weapon, it is 

error to admit evidence that other weapons were found in his possession, for 

such evidence tends to show, not that he committed the crime, but only that 

he is the sort of person who carries deadly weapons”].) 

As to the particular evidence here, Doretha Smith, with whom Jones 

lived for about a month around May of 2011, testified that Jones requested 

that she assist him in obtaining a 9-millimeter firearm around that time, and 

that she did so.

5 Smith went on to testify that in late June 2011, Jones asked 

her via text message to purchase a .45-caliber handgun for him, but that she 

did not respond to that request. 

Jones also argues that it was error to admit People’s Exhibits 223 and 

224, which were internet searches extracted from his cell phone and dated 

August 16, 2011, for various handguns, including a “Glock”-style handgun. 

Finally, Jones contends that it was error to admit People’s Exhibit 259, which 

5 “Q Okay. With that in mind, was there an occasion earlier in 2011 

when the Defendant asked you for assistance in purchasing a firearm?

“A Yes.

“Q Can you tell us what type of firearm it was?

“A It was a 9-millimeter.

“Q During that time, did you know someone that you could buy an 

illegal firearm from?

“A Yes.

“Q Did you, in fact, assist Mr. Jones to acquire that illegal 9-millimeter 

firearm?

“A Yes.

“Q Why? And I’m asking for your reason.

“A Well, because it was also to be for security for the home, so I went 

ahead and helped purchase it.” 
12

he characterizes as “a photograph found in [his] cell phone of an HTC brand 

handgun.” 

To begin with, these objections are forfeited because Jones did not raise 

them before the trial court. (See Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a) [reversal for 

erroneous admission of evidence precluded unless “[t]here appears of record 

an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was 

timely made and so stated to make clear the specific ground of the objection 

or motion”]; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6.) Jones’s 

counsel objected to the admission of this evidence on the grounds that its 

probative value was outweighed by prejudice, and lack of foundation, but did 

not raise the argument he now asserts on appeal. However, because Jones 

also argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this objection, 

we will consider the merits. 

With respect to the testimony of Smith and the searches for handguns 

from Jones’s cell phone, the rule of People v. Riser, supra, 47 Cal.2d 566, does 

not apply, because this evidence clearly had probative value apart from 

showing that Jones was the “sort of person who carries deadly weapons.” 

(Id. at p. 577.) Given that the murder in this case was committed on August 

18, 2011 with a .45-caliber handgun, evidence showing that Jones asked 

Smith in late June to purchase him just such a handgun was plainly 

relevant, and evidence of Smith’s previous purchase of a different handgun 

for Jones was relevant to explaining that request. And evidence that Jones 

was searching for various handguns on his phone two days before the murder 

was relevant to suggest that he ultimately obtained a gun and committed the 

murder, even if some of the guns searched for were ultimately not the murder 

weapon. In short, the rule of Riser does not apply here, because the evidence 

was probative of whether Jones ultimately possessed the murder weapon. 
13

Accordingly, there was no error in admitting it. (See People v. Gunder, supra, 

151 Cal.App.4th at p. 417 [“the extent to which evidence demonstrates 

criminal propensity is simply a factor to consider in assessing the prejudice 

from its admission; it is not a basis for exclusion unless the evidence 

otherwise lacks any probative value”].) 

With respect to People’s Exhibit 259, Jones’s argument appears to

misrepresent the record. Inspector Matthew Broad, who performed a data 

extraction on Jones’s HTC brand cell phone, testified as follows regarding 

People’s Exhibit 259:

“Q Okay. All right. So let’s, then, focus on the image, on these five, 

that you did find metadata on, you said it was People’s 211. Did you then 

create a one-page report for that particular image, including the metadata 

information you found? 

“A I did.

“Q I’m handing you what has been marked as People’s Exhibit 259. Is 

this the one-page report containing the image and the metadata information?

“A Yes.

“Q Now, can you explain a little bit about what we see when we’re 

looking at People’s 259?

“A So the top image is a thumbnail of the original image that is placed 

there for our benefit. Then below that, you see the file name, which was the 

name given to the image by the forensic software as it was being recovered, 

so it was a recovered image. It didn’t have a file name anymore. And then 

below is a bookmark comment, which includes text that I basically copied out 

and pasted in to be viewed. And this is the beginning of the file, so, for 

instance, the first—you just lost it.”
14

According to Menlo Park Officer David Apple, People’s Exhibit 211, the 

“original image” included in People’s Exhibit 259 in thumbnail form, depicted 

Jones holding a firearm which was similar to the murder weapon. Jones’s 

argument that the trial court erred in admitting People’s Exhibit 259 because 

it depicted Jones holding an “HTC brand handgun” that “could not have been 

used in the charged crime” does not accurately describe that exhibit. 

IV. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Preventing Defense Counsel from 

Asking Tatiana Harmon if Purvis Shot Her Brother

Jones’s next argument is that the trial court erred in prohibiting his 

counsel from asking Tatiana Harmon—Purvis’s girlfriend, and the mother of 

his child—whether Purvis had previously shot her brother. This is the 

background:

Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel explained to the trial 

court: “I also indicated that given [Harmon’s] testimony, that she has 

indicated to the police that Man Man, on a prior occasion, had shot her 

brother, and I wanted to inquire as to that of the witness with respect to that 

line of questioning with regard to her testimony, and [the prosecutor] 

objected. Those would be my requests.” The trial court refused this request 

as “not relevant to the issues currently before the Court.” 

Jones argues that this testimony was relevant because it showed that 

“Purvis was a member of the firearms-wielding Taliban gang,” that members 

of that gang “often fired handguns at other persons in the East Palo Alto 

area,” and that Purvis “was the kind of person who would inform on his 

friends to the FBI,” and “was the type of untrustworthy person who would 

endanger his fellow-Taliban gang members by talking to the FBI about 

them.” 
15

This claim fails, first, because Jones failed to make an offer of proof as 

to Harmon’s testimony. (See Evid. Code, § 354, subd. (a) [reversal based on 

exclusion of evidence requires that “[t]he substance, purpose, and relevance 

of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by the questions 

asked, an offer of proof, or by any other means”].) Jones concedes he made no 

such offer, but contends that one was not required because Harmon was a 

prosecution witness, and “[t]he evidence was sought by questions asked 

during cross-examination.” (Id., subd. (c).) However, “[t]his exception applies 

only to questions within the scope of the direct examination.” (People v. 

Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 103.) On direct examination, Harmon testified 

regarding two conversations she had with Kimberly Brown regarding 

Purvis’s death, and an incident in which Purvis shot her brother was outside 

the scope of that direct examination, as Jones appears to concede on reply. 

In addition, any error in excluding this evidence was harmless because 

it is not reasonably probable that a more favorable result would have been 

reached absent the alleged error. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 

837.) Jones contends that the fact that Purvis shot Harmon’s brother showed 

that Purvis was “violent and untrustworthy,” and thus “supported Ard’s 

explanation of his motive for killing Purvis,” that is, that Ard shot Purvis to 

punish him for informing on the Taliban gang to the FBI. But the evidence 

at trial already showed that Purvis was associated with the Taliban gang and 

suggested that he had committed an armed carjacking of Jones, with the 

prosecutor’s opening statement acknowledging that Purvis “was no angel” 

and was “associated with members of a criminal street gang known as the 

Taliban.” Evidence of a further incident in which Purvis shot his girlfriend’s 

brother—even had it been included in what was a eight-day trial featuring 

the testimony of dozens of witnesses—would have been cumulative to this 
16

evidence and would not have created a reasonable probability of a more 

favorable result.6 

V. There Was No Cumulative Error

Jones’s final argument is that the cumulative effect of the errors he 

alleges require reversal. Since we have found no prejudicial error in any 

respect, this argument fails. (People v. Coryell (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1299, 

1309.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

6 For the same reason, we reject Jones’s argument that this limitation 

on his cross-examination of Harmon was a violation of his rights under the 

confrontation clause. (See People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1188 

[“However, not every restriction on a defendant’s desired method of crossexamination is a constitutional violation. Within the confines of the 

confrontation clause, the trial court retains wide latitude in restricting crossexamination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing of the issues, or of 

marginal relevance”].) 
17

_________________________

Richman, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Stewart, J.

_________________________

Miller, J.

People v. Jones (A155649)