California v. Arredondo
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted both defendants in this case of first degree murder and found the special circumstances that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery and during the course of a kidnapping. The jury found that one of the defendants, Angelo Arredondo, had used a firearm in committing the murder. The jury found both defendants committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant Arredondo appealed, claiming he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel conceded defendant was guilty of felony murder, but should have rejected the special circumstance allegation. The Court of Appeal found that prosecutors may express, in the most vivid and even emotional terms, their disgust with the conduct of defendants shown by the evidence. “However, prosecutors may not suggest to the jury that a guilty verdict is required because of the need to punish a group with whom the defendants are associated or because of some uncharged and unspecified crimes the defendants or others may have committed.” Here, the Court determined the prosecutor's “relentless” description of the defendants and the other participants in the crime as "cockroaches" who together with others posed a hidden threat to the community, plainly suggested in powerful terms just such guilt by association and responsibility for uncharged acts. Because of the overwhelming evidence, the defendants planned to rob the victim and then decided to kill him, and that in doing so they kidnapped him, the prosecutor's misconduct did not require reversal of their murder convictions or the jury's special circumstances findings. However, the Court reversed the jury's gang findings. The evidence that the robbery, kidnapping, and murder were committed to benefit or otherwise advance the interests of a criminal street gang was somewhat conflicting and the prosecutor's repeated reference to guilt by association was directly related to those gang allegations. The Court also reversed the firearms enhancement imposed on Arredondo so that on remand the trial court could exercise the discretion recently provided to trial courts under the current version of section 12022.53(h).
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.