California v. Gastelum
Annotate this CaseVictor Gastelum was convicted by jury of the first degree murder of Terrance Rodgers with the special circumstance of lying-in-wait, and the premeditated attempted murder of J.W. As to both offenses, the jury found that Gastelum participated with the knowledge that another principal in the offense was armed with a firearm. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found that Gastelum had suffered a prior prison term and had not remained free of custody or subsequent offense for five years thereafter. The court sentenced Gastelum to consecutive indeterminate terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, plus three years. On appeal, Gastelum contended: He contends (1) the court erred under California v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) by instructing the jury that he could be convicted of first degree lying-in-wait murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; and (2) the court erred by instructing the jury that it could find true the lying-in-wait special circumstance if it found Gastelum acted with "intent to kill," without specifying whom Gastelum must have intended to kill. The Court of Appeal was unpersuaded by these contentions. With regard to his first contention, the Court determined Chiu held that a defendant could not be convicted of first degree premeditated murder as an aider and abettor based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and because the Chiu court did not consider the lying-in-wait murder at issue here, no persuasive argument was made as to why Chiu should have been extended to this type of murder "particularly where, as here, the defendant and perpetrator are equally culpable. With regard to Gastelum's second contention, the Court concluded Gastelum forfeited any claim of error by failing to object at trial to the allegedly deficient instruction. And, assuming that competent counsel would have objected, Gastelum did not show prejudice based on his counsel's failure to do so.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.