Opinion ID: 2595358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Valle Proceedings

Text: At trial, Valle conceded his guilt of all substantive charges but contested the special circumstances allegations. Thus, he admitted having committed first degree felony murder (as well as burglary and robbery) with Mendoza at The Lord's Church. However, he maintained Mendoza had fired the fatal gunshots. Based on this contention, Valle also argued that at the time of the murder, he lacked the mental state a mere participant must have for a true finding on the special circumstances allegations. In making this argument, he relied on evidence that at the time of the murder, he suffered from posttraumatic stress syndrome related to prior combat experiences in El Salvador. Consistent with the prosecution's theory and Valle's defense, the trial court instructed Valle's jury only on first degree felony murder as follows: The defendant is accused in Count One of the Indictment of having committed the crime of murder, a violation of Penal Code Section 187. [І] Every person who unlawfully kills a human being during the commission or attempted commission of robbery or burglary, is guilty of the crime of murder, in violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code. [І] In order to prove such crime, each of the following elements must be proved: First, a human being was killed; second, the killing was unlawful; and third, the killing occurred during the commission or attempted commission of robbery or burglary, [І] The unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the commission or attempted commission of the crime of robbery or burglary, is murder of the first degree when the perpetrator had the specific intent to commit such crime. [І] The specific intent to commit robbery or burglary and the commission or attempted commission of such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [І] In order for an accused to be guilty of murder as an aider and abettor of a burglary, he must have formed the intent to encourage or facilitate the perpetrator prior to or at the time the perpetrator entered [T]he Lord's Church with the required specific intent. [І] For an accused to be guilty of ... murder, as an aider and abettor to a robbery, he must have formed the intent to encourage or facilitate the robbery prior to or during the commission of the robbery. [І] If a human being is killed by any one of several persons engaged in the commission or attempted commission of the crime of robbery or burglary, all persons who either directly or actively commit the act constituting such crimes, or with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator of the crimes, and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging or facilitating the commission of the offenses, aids, promotes, encourages or instigates by act or advice its commission, are guilty of murder of the first degree whether the killing is intentional, unintentional, or accidental. [І] If you find the defendant in this case guilty of murder of the first degree, you must determine if one or more of the [alleged] special circumstances are true or not true. As in Mendoza's trial, the trial court's instructions on the lesser crime[s] of which the jury could convict Valle if it found him not guilty of the charged crimes did not mention either second degree murder or any other form of criminal homicide. During closing argument, the prosecutor, after again reading to the jury the court's instruction on first degree murder, stated: It is clear from any interpretation of the evidence in this case that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder under this felony murder theory. Clearly he entered [The Lord's Church] with the intent to commit theft, he admitted that to his own doctors. The prosecutor also reiterated that for the first degree felony-murder rule to apply, the killing can be unintentional or accidental. Which, in relation to the discharge of the firearm by this defendant, we argue to you was not accidental.... But in any event, it's clear that he's guilty of the first degree murder.... Later, the prosecutor explained that he was not asking you to find [Valle] guilty of any lesser included offenses. The prosecutor closed by asserting that Valle is responsible as the actual killer, of first degree murder of Dan Elledge, and that the special circumstances of committing that murder in the first degree during the commission of a burglary and robbery are true.... In his rebuttal, the prosecutor again asserted that he had proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element and issue of the first degree murder on the felony murder theory. Defense counsel began her closing argument by explaining that she would not spend any time telling you that ... the prosecution, has not proven their case with regard to the robberies, the burglaries, and even the felony murder. Counsel then focused the jury's attention on the difference between first degree felony murder and the alleged special circumstances, explaining: [W]hat I want to point out is that when you look at the special circumstances, at first it appears that the felony murder and the special circumstance are the same thing because you find first degree murder by the felony murder theory, or the felony murder rule, if you're involved in the commission of a felony in someone's eyes, even if it's accidental, it's first degree murder. [І] And then you turn to the special circumstance.... She later explained that the special circumstance of committing murder while engaged in a robbery or burglary, which must be considered `[i]f you find Mr. Valle guilty of murder in the first degree,' looks a lot like the vehicle which just got you to first degree murder, which is the felony murder rule. She later repeated that robbery and then death resulting is recognized [under the law] by the felony murder rule. That's how you get to first degree murder.... In concluding, counsel asked the jury to find the special circumstances allegations not true, while she conceded that Valle was guilty of ... the felony murder of Dan Elledge because he was in there when someone died. He was participating in a felony first degree murder robbery. After closing arguments, the court discussed the verdict forms with counsel. Defense counsel began by asserting that a proposed verdict form on the murder charge contained a mistake because it was a verdict form for premeditated and deliberate murder under [section] 187(a).... Counsel argued that the form should read, `Murder, in violation of Section 189 ... in that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a felony, to wit, robbery and/or burglary.' And that would be felony murder under [section] 189. In reply to the court's request that she explain this proposal, counsel replied: Because ... that's the theory of the case, that's what we've talked about, that's what's been put on.... Counsel continued: [M]y concern is with the felony murder language.... [І] ... I think what it should say is ... that, `to wit, this murder was committed during the commission of a felony,' that it's clear they're finding ... a murder based on felony murder.... [І] There's been so much discussion aboutБ─■I mean, and the whole theory is that the murder is found by the killing happening during the commission of a felony.... [І] So I think it should be clear to [the jurors] at the time that they areБ─■they are dealing with the verdict on murder or not that it's felony murder, and that's exactly what they're finding. The prosecution objected to defense counsel's proposal, asserting that a verdict form should never refer to the theory or theories of the murder. It also explained: In this case, there is only one theory, so there can't be any confusion as to what [the jury's] finding is, it has to be in the commission of a felony. Apparently agreeing with the prosecution, the court then denied defendant's request that the verdict form refer to the prosecution's legal theory. As in Mendoza's trial, the verdict forms the court submitted to Valle's jury did not give it the option to return a verdict for second degree murder or any lesser form of criminal homicide. The jury found Valle guilty of the offense charged in Count I, a felony, to wit, murder in violation of Section 187(a).... It also found him guilty of second degree robbery and burglary, and found true the special-circumstances allegations that he had committed the murder while committing robbery and burglary. After the clerk read these findings aloud, the court asked each juror: With respect to the verdict of the jury in Count I, a violation of Section 187 ..., murder, the finding of guilty, was that your individual verdict ...? Each juror answered, Yes. At the penalty phase of the trial, the jury found that Valle's penalty should be life in prison without possibility of parole, rather than death. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment against Valle for first degree murder and sentenced him in accordance with the jury's finding. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.