Title: P. v. Silveria and Travis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S062417M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 2020

Filed 9/23/20 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  
CALIFORNIA 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
v. 
DANIEL TODD SILVERIA and JOHN RAYMOND TRAVIS, 
Defendant and Appellant. 
 
S062417 
 
Santa Clara County Superior Court 
155731 
 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITIONS FOR 
REHEARING 
THE COURT: 
The opinion in this matter filed on August 13, 2020, and appearing 
at 10 Cal.5th 195 is modified as follows: 
1. 
Add a footnote after the sentence spanning pages 209 and 210 
reading, “On a Tuesday in January 1991, Silveria showed his friend Gregg 
Orlando a wad of cash, and said, ‘We killed somebody last night.’ ”  The 
new footnote should read:   
At the guilt phase, this portion of Orlando’s testimony was heard 
only by Silveria’s jury.  Orlando also gave substantially similar 
testimony at defendants’ joint penalty retrial. 
2. 
In the first full paragraph on page 305, delete the sentence and 
citation that read: “We conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the 
court’s error misled the jury. (See People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 
579 [248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 587, 443 P.3d 1] [“In reviewing a claim of 
instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable 
likelihood that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply 
the law in violation of the Constitution.”].)  As modified, the replacement 
sentence and citation now read:   
We conclude there is no reasonable possibility that the court’s error 
affected the verdict.  (See People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 309–
310; see also id. at p. 310 [“We find no reasonable possibility that the 
instructional error affected the jury’s penalty determination.”].) 
3. 
Delete the sentence spanning pages 305 and 306 that reads: 
“Given these instructions at the end of the penalty retrial, there is no 
reasonable likelihood that the jurors who may have heard the challenged 
language at the outset of trial failed to understand that they ‘bore the 
ultimate responsibility for choosing between death and life imprisonment 
without parole’ (Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 355), and that they could 
consider pity and sympathy for the defendants.”  As modified, the 
replacement sentence now reads:   
The instructions given at the end of the penalty retrial correctly 
informed them that they “bore the ultimate responsibility for 
choosing between death and life imprisonment without parole” (Ray, 
supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 355), and that they could consider pity and 
sympathy for the defendants.  We therefore conclude there is no 
reasonable possibility that without the erroneous instruction on 
CALJIC 1.00 to some of the jurors during voir dire Silveria would 
have received a more favorable verdict. 
 
 
These modifications do not affect the judgment.   
 
The petitions for rehearing are denied.