People v. Taylor CA3

Filed 4/7/25 P. v. Taylor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099150

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE011009)

v.

VINCENT TAYLOR et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

A jury found defendants Vincent Taylor and Raymond Valentino Butler guilty of murder. After the close of evidence, a witness recanted his testimony but could not appear in court for several days. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to continue and later their motion for a new trial. On appeal, defendants challenge these rulings. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendants were found guilty of murder for the shooting death of Terrance Flournoy. Flournoy was involved in a custody dispute with the mother of his child,

1

resulting in her uncle, defendant Butler, killing Flournoy with his friend, defendant Taylor, soon after communicating with her via text messages and phone calls. The shooting was caught on surveillance footage, although defendants were not clearly depicted in it. Evidence of defendants’ association with each other on the day of the shooting came from multiple sources, including cell phone location data; defendant Taylor’s fingerprints on the exterior of the passenger door of the getaway car, which was registered to defendant Butler’s wife; and home surveillance footage showing defendants together outside defendant Butler’s home. Defendant Taylor was found to be the actual shooter, meaning defendant Butler was the driver of the getaway car depicted on the surveillance footage. One witness saw the shooter when the witness arrived for an appointment at Flournoy’s barbershop. The shooter, wearing a mask and hat, approached the witness and told him to get back in his car. After the witness returned to his car, he saw the shooter fire his gun. The witness testified the shooter was taller than six feet two inches and appeared to be over 40 years old given the wrinkles around his eyes and tenor of his voice. Before his death, Flournoy also identified the shooter as a tall, dark man wearing a mask. Nathan L. testified at trial that he was at a convenience store across the parking lot from the barbershop at the time of the shooting. He testified he could not see the barbershop or the shooter from his vantage point in a recessed area outside the store. After hearing shots, Nathan went to the barbershop and found Flournoy on the ground. Nathan drove Flournoy to the hospital in Flournoy’s car. Nathan did not want to testify and was in court because he was subpoenaed to be there. Nathan was unhoused and had been hired by Flournoy in the past to work in his shop. Over a week after the close of evidence but before closing arguments, Nathan provided a declaration to defendant Butler’s wife essentially stating that, at the time of the shooting, he saw a man named Marua, a person he knew to be dangerous, park near