People v. Bedolla
Annotate this CaseA Santa Clara County jury convicted Bedolla of attempted first-degree burglary and found true the special circumstance allegation that someone other than an accomplice was in the residence during the crime. Bedolla argued on appeal—and the prosecution conceded—that the special circumstance allegation is not applicable to the crime of attempted burglary. He also argued that the trial court gave conflicting jury instructions on the defense of voluntary intoxication and granted the prosecutor’s request to impeach his credibility with inadmissible evidence of a prior offense that did not involve moral turpitude. The court of appeal affirmed, striking the true finding on the special circumstance allegation. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt as an aider and abettor based on CALCRIM 401. There was a commonsense, noncontradictory way to read the instructions; the combined effect of the jury instructions, explicit and implicit arguments of counsel, and nature of the evidence itself, indicated that it was not reasonably likely that the jury misunderstood or misapplied the challenged instructions to the defendant’s prejudice. Insofar as the state legislature has determined that the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in a public poses a grave risk of harm, Bedolla’s prior juvenile adjudication involved moral turpitude.
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.