1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2025/11/18 - Nov 18, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2025/11/18

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 26m 1 speaker 6 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does the Court of Appeal’s opening session and roster look like?

Sarah Obarbanell 0:00

The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five is now in session, the Honorable Terry L. Jackson presiding, with Associate Justices the Honorable Gordon B. Burns and the Honorable Danny Y Chu.

Terry L. Jackson 0:12

Please be seated. Good morning. Just give us a moment.

Terry L. Jackson 1:03

All right, let's call the first matter at line one in the case of people versus Alejandro. Edward Jones, c may I have the parties please come forward? I believe one is on remote, Michelle Peterson. And the other person is in person. Oh, there you are. I'm so sorry. You are poor. And um For the appell I am Justice Terry L. Jackson on this matter. I am joined by Justice Gordon Burns, who is here by way of Zoom, and Justice Danny Chu. And may I please have the appearance first starting with the appellant who is here in the courtroom. Oh excuse me, by way of them. Excuse me.

Michelle Peterson 1:50

Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Um Michelle Peterson for the appellate Ali Hans Row Jones.

Terry L. Jackson 1:57

Very good. And the respondent who is here. And could you please go to the podium so we can hear you?

Michelle Peterson 2:02

Yes, good morning, Your Honors, Claudia Phillips for respondent.

Terry L. Jackson 2:05

Thank you very much. I believe the parties have received a focus order from the court where we asked you first to address the effects of people versus Emmanuel, the Supreme Court decision, and on the uh sufficiency of the evidence of reckless indifference um involved in this case. Also the parties have received in the focus order um where they are instructed to uh argue ten minutes each side for the appellant. If there is rebuttal, how much time would you like to reserve if there is rebuttal? I don't know if there will be.

Michelle Peterson 2:45

I I think under the uh in this situation, Your Honor, one minute suffices.

Terry L. Jackson 2:49

Okay, one minute. Uh you raise issues dealing with the doctor of claim preclusion, um where your your statement is that the prosecution is barred from proving reckless um indifference. And you also say that um Joan's bragging about shooting the victim barred by the issue of um Issue preclusion violated as constitutional rights of a jury trial and job double jeopardy, and various other issues that you've raised, you may begin your argument.

Michelle Peterson 3:23

Thank you, Your Honor. Um and I'm going to stick to the focus letter. Um uh in fact, every opinion that I've planned aside today an argument that isn't the Emmanuel opinion was relied on by Emmanuel. Um, I'll start with what the parties agree on that Emmanuel holds there must be evidence that the defendant acted with a mens rea of reckless indifference to life as of the time of the homicide. However, the people claim that an alleged bad attitude after a homicide is itself re evidence of reckless indifference before the homicide. But that theory is rejected directly by Emmanuel and cases on which Emmanuel rely. Um one of those cases is division one's opinion in Inray Taylor. Which uh both our opening brief and reply brief relied on heavily, and the Supreme Court in Emanuel also relied on Taylor, but the people don't mention Taylor at all.

Michelle Peterson 4:20

Now the original Taylor opinion in nineteen ninety six is very similar to what the people argue now. But Division I's Taylor opinion in 2019, after Banks and Clark rejected what they themselves wrote in 1996. And in particular, Div 1 held there was evidence that Taylor knew there would be a gun. And Taylor's post-shooting remarks about the elderly victim were, quote, abhorrent, close quote, but they were not evidence that Taylor acted with reckless indifference to life before. But counsel?

Danny Y Chu 4:53

Um if I could briefly interrupt. Um the statements in this case, the defendant allegedly explained why he shot the victim. I isn't that actually reflective of the defendant's mensrea at the time of the shooting?

Michelle Peterson 5:08

Well, um, Your Honor, that's um uh that's what the people claim, but the problem is that uh This court cannot, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, use the theory that he shot the victim because the jury found uh that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot the victim. Well, but I

Danny Y Chu 5:31

uh uh uh the court, as I understood it, didn't conclude that actually eschewed