People v. Valine CA3

Filed 12/9/14 P. v. Valine CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C075411

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F08213)

v.

DANIEL JOSEPH VALINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Victim Kelly McClurg was fatally shot at his house, twice in the face and once in the chest over a dispute about stolen marijuana. Present at the shooting were defendant Daniel Joseph Valine, defendant’s son Justin Valine, and Kailan James, who was the boyfriend of defendant’s daughter. The question at trial was who pulled the trigger -- defendant or James.

The son testified at trial to the following: defendant was the shooter; defendant emerged from the victim’s house carrying a shotgun and James emerged carrying

1

marijuana plants; and defendant fled the scene in a car (in which the son and James were the passengers). Police recorded a conversation between defendant, the son, and a sergeant. Defendant said he was at the victim’s house when the shots went off “in front of [him].” James fired the shots. Defendant grabbed the shotgun from James. The son saw defendant grab the shotgun from James. Defendant fled right afterward. The People charged defendant with the victim’s first degree malice murder, and the jury found him guilty of second degree murder. Defendant appeals, raising three contentions: (1) the testimony of his accomplice son was not sufficiently corroborated; (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting five inflammatory photographs of the victim’s body; and (3) the consciousness of guilt instructions allowed the jury to draw irrational inferences of his guilt. We disagree and affirm. DISCUSSION I The Testimony Of The Accomplice Son Was Sufficiently Corroborated Defendant contends the testimony of his accomplice son was not sufficiently corroborated. The son testified it was defendant who fatally shot the victim. We disagree because the corroborating evidence placed defendant at the scene of the crime, put the murder weapon in his hands moments after the shooting, and showed he fled the scene. “A conviction can be based on an accomplice’s testimony only if other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense corroborates that testimony. ([Pen. Code,] § 1111.) The corroborating evidence may be circumstantial or slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone, and it must tend to implicate the defendant by relating to an act that is an element of the crime. The corroborating evidence need not by itself establish every element of the crime, but it