California v. Chavez
Annotate this CaseDefendant Oswaldo Chavez knifed a man in the back, and defendant Daniel Gonzalez shot and killed another. Both were convicted by jury of second degree murder, and assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, Chavez contended: (1) the trial court erred by admitting an eyewitness's in-court identification of him that was the result of an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure; (2) the court erred by improperly limiting the scope of opinion testimony by his eyewitness identification expert; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of second degree murder; and (4) the court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 571 on imperfect self-defense or imperfect defense of another but omitting imperfect defense of Gonzalez. Gonzalez joined these contentions, and also argued: (1) the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 3471 on the right of self-defense but omitting language stating that an aggressor who initially uses only nondeadly force regains the right to self-defense when his or her opponent counters with deadly force; (2) the court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 3472, but not modifying it with language stating that a person who provokes a fight with an intent to use nondeadly force regains the right to self-defense when his or her opponent counters with deadly force; and (3) the court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by admitting the testimony of an eyewitness regarding the death threat he (Gonzalez) made to dissuade that eyewitness from testifying at trial, and also abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial. Chavez joined in Gonzalez's contentions. After the parties submitted their briefs in this case, Gonzalez filed a supplemental brief arguing that the Court of Appeal should have: (1) concluded the provisions of 2017 Senate Bill No. 620, effective January 1, 2018, applied retroactively to judgments not yet final; and (2) remanded the matter for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
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.