People v. Hall CA3

Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Hall CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C072558

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F00911)

v.

RICARDO LYNN HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

In the early morning of January 23, 2010, in Del Paso Heights, 18-year-old defendant Ricardo Lynn Hall shot victim Mathew Maurizzio twice from three to four feet away, including fatally in the heart. The circumstances of the shooting were these: Maurizzio had about $1,000 on him and wanted to buy drugs. When defendant learned about the money, he and two friends talked about robbing the victim. Defendant, with a gun in hand, demanded money from the victim. The victim pushed past defendant. Defendant said the victim had disrespected him, and defendant’s friend yelled at defendant, “ ‘don’t do that.’ ” Defendant shot the victim anyway.

1

About eight months before defendant shot the victim, defendant told a friend, “he wanted to know what it felt like to kill somebody,” just after he had unsuccessfully tried to choke a cat. At trial in this case, defendant testified on his own behalf that there had been some discussion about a drug swap between one of his friends and the victim. The victim walked past defendant but then stopped. Defendant had a gun in his pocket “in case something happened.” Defendant’s friend told defendant to give him the gun, and as defendant pulled it out, he noticed the victim staring at him. The victim started coming at defendant. Defendant earlier had been told that the victim had a knife, so defendant thought the victim was going to stab him. Defendant had been stabbed in the past. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder with the special circumstance that it was committed during an attempted robbery and found him guilty of attempted robbery. The jury also found true that defendant committed both crimes by personally discharging a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for the special circumstance murder. Defendant appeals, raising two evidentiary issues and two sentencing issues. We will strike the parole revocation fine and affirm the judgment as modified. DISCUSSION I The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Admitting Evidence Defendant Told His Friend That He Wanted To Know What It Felt Like To Kill Somebody To Show His Intent To Kill Here Defendant contends the court violated his federal constitutional right to a fair trial when it admitted evidence that eight months before the murder, defendant told his friend “he wanted to know what it felt like to kill somebody,” just after he had unsuccessfully tried to choke a cat. The court admitted the evidence as relevant to show defendant’s intent to kill in this case. We find no abuse of discretion. (See People v. Coffman and