Court Opinion

ID: 9401308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 18:04:00.5413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.978917
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Murrillo CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C095036

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 20FE014912)

           v.

 MARCO ANTONIO MURRILLO,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury found defendant Marco Antonio Murillo guilty of numerous crimes
including assault with a deadly weapon. After the trial court denied his motion for a new
trial, the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years eight months in
state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by
attempting to elicit inadmissible testimony from the victim Y. when she testified at trial.
The trial court, he argues, thus erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and motion for a
new trial. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                      BACKGROUND
       The People charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,
§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), making criminal threats (§ 422), grossly negligent discharge of a
firearm (§ 246.3), inflicting corporal injury on a person with whom defendant was in or
had previously been in a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and child endangerment
under circumstances likely to cause great bodily injury or death (§ 273a, subd. (a)). The
People further alleged defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the
crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Defendant pleaded not guilty.
       At trial, while the prosecutor was questioning the victim Y., the following
exchange took place: “Is this the first time the defendant has struck you?
       “[Defense Counsel]: Relevance.
       “THE COURT: I’m sorry?
       “[Defense Counsel]: Relevance.
       “THE COURT: Approach please.” After an unreported bench conference, the
prosecutor continued their examination of the victim without returning to the question of
prior acts of violence.
       Later, as the court was set to break for lunch, while the jury was out of the
courtroom, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. Defense counsel argued the
prosecutor’s inquiry into prior acts of violence was prejudicial. Counsel noted, the
witness answered the prosecutor’s question in the affirmative, and her answer was left in
the record. That too, he argued, was prejudicial. The court denied the motion.
       The jury found defendant guilty on each charge except child endangerment. The
jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm during the
commission of the assault. Before sentencing, defendant filed a motion for a new trial.
The court denied the motion: “The standard for reviewing a new trial motion is if there’s
substantial evidence to sustain the verdict. Clearly the question that has given rise to all

                                              2
of this, was a question that should not have been asked, but in reviewing the transcript,
I’m not even sure she answered. One paper says the answer was no, and the other one
says it was yes. The transcript does not have an answer at all.
       “So the Court – the Court at side bar sustained the objection as to relevance, and
denied the motion to strike because there’s nothing in the record to strike.
       “At this point, the Court does not believe that that question and potential answer
would justify a new trial.
       “[Y.] testified for the better part of a day. This is one question, one equivocal
answer. The Court, thereafter, believed that bringing more attention to it would not be of
anyone’s interest and further directed the People not to bring up anything concerning that
issue in any subsequent part of the trial.”
       The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years eight months in
state prison.

                                         DISCUSSION
       On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying both his motion for
a mistrial and his motion for a new trial. In support of his contention, defendant argues
the prosecutor committed misconduct by attempting to introduce prior acts of violence
“by surprise” during trial. The misconduct, he argues, was “highly prejudicial” and
warrants reversal. We are not persuaded.
       A motion for mistrial should be granted “ ‘only when “ ‘a party’s chances of
receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged’ ” ’ [citation], that is, if it is ‘apprised
of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction’ [citation]. ‘Whether a
particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the
trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.’ ” (People
v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 573.) Accordingly, we review a trial court’s ruling on a

                                                3
motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Bolden
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555.)
        Similarly, “ ‘ “[t]he determination of a motion for a new trial rests so completely
within the court’s discretion that its action will not be disturbed unless a manifest and
unmistakable abuse of discretion clearly appears.” ’ [Citations.] ‘ “[I]n determining
whether there has been a proper exercise of discretion on such motion, each case must be
judged from its own factual background.’ ” [Citation.]” (People v. Delgado (1993)
5 Cal.4th 312, 328.)
        And finally, “to establish reversible prosecutorial misconduct a defendant must
show that the prosecutor used “ ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods’ ” and that it is
reasonably probable that, without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the
defendant would have resulted.” (People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 332.) “ ‘The
deliberate asking of questions calling for inadmissible and prejudicial answers is
misconduct.’ ” (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 532.) “Generally, [however,] there
is no prejudice where an objection is made and sustained.” (People v. Trinh (2014)
59 Cal.4th 216, 249.) “We review claims of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of
discretion standard.” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881, 910.)
        Here, the prosecutor asked Y. a question which could have elicited an inadmissible
answer; however, before Y. could answer, defense counsel objected and the court
sustained the objection. Thus, “no inadmissible testimony was heard by the jury.”
(People v. Trinh, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 249.) Moreover, as noted by the trial court, the
question asked by the prosecutor was a single, unanswered question in a nearly full day
of testimony from the victim. The consequences of this question fall “far short of
‘infect[ing] the trial with such unfairness as to render the subsequent conviction a denial
of due process’ [citation], and there is no reasonable probability [it] influenced the
verdict . . . .” (Ibid.)

                                              4
      In short, on this record, even were we to decide there was misconduct, it certainly
did not prejudice defendant and the court acted within its discretion denying defendant’s
motions.

                                      DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MAURO, J.

RENNER, J.

                                            5