People v. Loza CA2/6

Filed 4/3/25 P. v. Loza CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B330880 (Super. Ct. No. BA497350) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

CESAR ANGEL LOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Cesar Angel Loza appeals following a trial at which a jury convicted him of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b); counts 1 and 2).1 The jury also found true allegations that appellant personally used a firearm in committing both offenses. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) The court sentenced appellant to a total term of six years in state prison.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Appellant contends: (1) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to self-defense; and (2) the court unconstitutionally burdened his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by requiring his testimony to assert self- defense. We conclude the court erred in failing to instruct on self- defense. Therefore, we will reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “Because the right to instruction[] on self-defense is the central issue in this appeal, our recital of the evidence introduced at trial is necessarily one emphasizing matters which would justify such instruction[], rather than the customary summary of evidence supporting the judgment.” (People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, 15-16, fn. omitted.) On July 22, 2021, appellant went to an apartment complex to pick up his baby. Maritza Aguilar, the child’s grandmother, lived there and took care of her grandson. Appellant was part of a gang and had past issues with rival gang members who resided in the complex. To avoid having appellant come inside, Aguilar would usually have appellant wait outside the complex’s main gate while she or someone else brought the child to him. On the day in question, appellant entered the complex through a pedestrian gate after another person had opened it. Appellant walked casually into the complex and took his child from Aguilar. As appellant headed back to the car and put his baby in it, he repeatedly looked back toward the apartments. Aguilar told social worker Naicari Mata that appellant exchanged looks with one individual. Two men—one in a white shirt, the other in a black shirt— advanced quickly toward appellant, with one of the two men reaching behind his back. Appellant produced a 9-millimeter