P. v. Zeigler
Filed 9/4/13 P. v. Zeigler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANCHALLA ANDRE ZEIGLER,
Defendant and Appellant.
C069937
(Super. Ct. Nos.
CM034425, CM034238)
In March
2011, 20-year-old Khalil A. was shot in the chest with a silver revolver in Chico. The shooting occurred toward the end of a
party in a parking lot outside a club at around 1:00
a.m. The shooter came up to
Khalil A., started “acting tough,†and claimed to be a Blood gang member from Compton. Khalil A. asked the shooter, “ ‘How you
going to act tough with a church shirt on?’ †The shooter responded by firing at
Khalil A., hitting him in the chest.
The shooter was facing him, with nobody in between, from about six to 10
feet away. The shooter then took off
running. Khalil A. identified defendant
Anchalla Andre Zeigler as the shooter in a photographic lineup and in
court. So did a friend of his who saw
the shooting. When police searched
defendant’s home, they found a revolver that looked similar to the one used in
the shooting that had one spent casing inside, indicating the gun had been
fired once. A jury found defendant
guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter (which was a lesser included offense
of charged murder), assault with a firearm, and felon in
On appeal
from the resulting conviction, defendant contends the court violated his right
to a fair trial in admitting evidence that he perpetrated a shooting in
2008. As we explain below, the court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the prior shooting. (People
v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369 [standard of review].)
The 2008
shooting occurred in Chico at about
1:00 a.m. Defendant (who was with friends) approached
20-year-old C. and her friends (including J.), who were sitting on the lawn of
a home across from a large house party, and asked them if they knew “Mike,†who
lived across the street. They said no,
and defendant and his friends left but told C. and her friends that if they saw
Mike to tell him they were looking for him.
A few hours later, defendant and one of his friends returned and accused
J. of being racist.
title="">[1] Defendant pulled out a chrome revolver and
held it to J.’s temple and said he was a Blood.
Defendant and his friend started hitting J. and another of J.’s male
friends in the head and eventually had them down on their knees. When C. tried to intervene, defendant put a
gun to her head and told her, “ ‘Shut up you fucking white bitch.’ †Defendant ordered others to go into the house
and retrieve some guns, which they did.
As defendant and his friend were leaving, defendant said they were going
to come back in the morning and kill them and their families. When C. made her way to her car, she saw
defendant standing in the middle of the road firing a chrome revolver at her
and J., while facing them. The trial
court instructed the jury that the prior shooting (which it said was an assault
with a firearm) was to be used for intent to kill, motive to commit the charged
crimes here, or possession of a firearm.
The prior
shooting was sufficiently similar to the current shooting for the purposes of
showing intent, motive, or possession -- which require a lesser degree of
similarity between the uncharged act and the charged offense than is required
to prove identity. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402-403.) In both cases, defendant provoked a verbal
fight early in the morning with unfamiliar victims in their 20’s in Chico while
referencing his gang, the Bloods. He
turned the verbal fight into a serious physical one by pulling out a silver or
chrome revolver and shooting directly at the victims.
To the
extent defendant also argues that notwithstanding the similarities between the
two shootings, the court erred in admitting the evidence of the 2008 shooting because
it was uniquely prejudicial, we find no abuse of discretion. It is true there was a racial component to
the 2008 crimes (defendant accused the victims of being racist and called C. a
“fucking white bitchâ€) that was not present in the charged crimes. However, the actual outcome of the charged
crimes was much more disturbing. None of
the bullets hit the victims of the 2008 shooting. In contrast, defendant shot Khalil A. in the
chest, causing an eight-inch puncture hole that required inserting a tube in
his lungs to improve their functioning.
Given the similarities in the two crimes and the more severe nature of
the current shooting, we cannot say the trial
court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the 2008 shooting.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
ROBIE , J.
We concur:
ULL , Acting P. J.
MAURO , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
J. had a shaved head and the
house he was at had a confederate flag that was clearly visible from the
outside.
The written instructions given to
the jury similarly stated the prior shooting was to be used for intent, motive,
and possession. These instructions
controlled how the jury was allowed to use the prior shooting evidence (
758, 803), despite an earlier oral instruction from the court given just before
the evidence of the prior shooting was put before the jury that stated the
prior shooting evidence could be used to show “identity, intent, motive,
opportunity, common plan, design or scheme.â€
