Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alexander Toledo, Ricardo Diaz, and Keonte Smith were charged in Santa Clara County with crimes arising from an August 2019 meeting ostensibly arranged to buy several pounds of marijuana from Brian Castro and Robert Hernandez. The prosecution's theory was that the defendants planned to rob the victims; during the encounter Diaz fatally shot Castro and wounded Hernandez. The information charged Toledo and Diaz with murder and a robbery-murder special circumstance, all three defendants with second degree robbery and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and only Diaz with felon firearm possession and related enhancements. In September 2022 a jury convicted on all counts; in February 2023 the court sentenced Diaz to life without parole plus 21 years 4 months, Toledo to life without parole plus 4 years, and Smith to 13 years.
On appeal, all three defendants argued the prosecutor violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Pen. Code, § 745). During voir dire he analogized jurors' evaluation of the defendants to his experience dog-sitting a pit bull named Medusa, repeatedly invoking fear of being mauled. In opening and closing he called the defendants ocean predators preying on the victims in 'the food chain on the street.' No defendant objected at trial, though a prospective juror objected that the pit bull analogy compared the defendants to an animal; the trial court rejected that characterization.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that RJA claims remain subject to forfeiture, rejecting the argument that Assembly Bill No. 1071 (effective January 1, 2026) eliminated preservation requirements; earlier bill drafts expressly barred waiver, but that language was deleted. The court nonetheless excused forfeiture here because an objection would likely have been futile—the trial court had immediately rejected the prospective juror's identical complaint—the law was then unsettled, and reaching the merits would forestall an ineffective-assistance claim.
On the merits, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecutor used racially discriminatory language under section 745, subdivision (a)(2). The pit bull analogy, though neither metaphor nor simile and not a direct comparison, implicitly compared the defendants—all people of color—to a vicious animal that had to prove itself an exception to a stereotype. The predator-and-prey imagery, potentially race-neutral alone, reinforced that animal imagery by anchoring it in a nonhuman realm. Because judgment had been entered, the court reversed the judgment, vacated each defendant's convictions and sentence as legally invalid, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with section 745, subdivision (a), potentially including retrial.
The court also resolved sufficiency claims that could bar retrial. It found sufficient evidence that Toledo, a major participant, acted with reckless indifference to human life, citing his planning role, awareness that Diaz would be armed, and his untroubled conduct after the shooting, while acknowledging some factors were neutral or weighed against. It likewise found sufficient evidence that Smith, acquitted of murder, aided and abetted the robberies with the requisite specific intent based on his role as driver and circumstantial evidence including his social media posts.
Key Takeaways
- RJA claims are generally forfeited if not raised at trial, and the 2026 amendments did not change that, but appellate courts may excuse forfeiture where an objection would have been futile or the law was unsettled.
- Language that implicitly compares defendants to animals—even without a direct comparison—can violate the RJA if an objective observer aware of implicit bias would see an appeal to racial bias.
- The prosecutor's intent is irrelevant; well-meaning analogies still violate the RJA if they objectively appeal to racial bias through animal imagery.
- An RJA violation found after judgment requires reversing the judgment and vacating the convictions and sentences as legally invalid, with remand under section 745, subdivision (a).
- Sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted at trial, even if erroneously admitted, so reversal on RJA grounds does not preclude retrial on supported counts.
Why It Matters
Applying People v. Bankston (2026) 19 Cal.5th 786, the decision holds that even indirect animal analogies—a dog-sitting story told to rehabilitate a hesitant juror—can violate the RJA when context implies a comparison between defendants and animals. Courts must assess such language from the perspective of an objective observer attuned to implicit bias, not a naive observer insensible to racial subtext.
The opinion also confirms that the 2026 amendments did not abolish RJA forfeiture while showing courts may still reach unpreserved claims where the trial court already rejected the very objection at issue. Its sufficiency rulings preserve retrial on the adequately supported counts.