Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The prosecution arose from an August 28, 2016 confrontation between neighbors on Jouett Street in Lake View Terrace. After a dispute involving people attending a gathering at Nevarez’s home and Hector Hernandez’s family, Hernandez’s group began walking away. Someone fired seven shots, killing Edgar Canaan and Moises Farias and wounding Hernandez. Following a stalled investigation, Nevarez was charged with two first-degree murders, willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, and assault with a firearm. At the August 2023 trial, the defense alternatively denied that Nevarez was the shooter and argued provocation or self-defense. The jury convicted him on all counts, and the court imposed an aggregate sentence of life without parole plus 25 years to life.
The prosecution presented testimony that Nevarez hurried back from a Home Depot after learning of the dispute, arrived in a white Ford Mustang, and exited with a gun. Alfredo Herrera testified that Nevarez initially walked away, then turned and opened fire. Other evidence described Nevarez’s flight, a confession to Evee Saldana, and seven shell casings attributed to one firearm. The defense emphasized conflicting identifications, threats made during the confrontation, and testimony about another armed man. During deliberations, jurors asked for clarification of first- versus second-degree murder and the meaning and application of provocation. After discussing the request with counsel, the court directed them to CALCRIM Nos. 500, 520, 521, 522, and 570 and offered to reread the instructions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the sufficiency challenge under the deferential substantial-evidence standard. It explained that premeditation means thought over in advance and deliberation involves carefully weighing considerations, but both can occur during a brief interval; reflection, rather than elapsed time, is the test. Applying the planning, motive, and manner-of-killing framework, the court found that Nevarez left the store to join the dispute, had time during the drive to consider his course, arrived armed, and fired seven shots at an unarmed group walking away. Those circumstances supported a reasoned inference of a preexisting decision to shoot and undermined his self-defense theory. His contrary arguments did not eliminate the evidence supporting the verdicts.
The court also found no abuse of discretion in the response to the jury’s note. Although Penal Code section 1138 requires information on requested points of law, a court need not elaborate when the original instructions are full and complete. Here, the trial court considered how to assist the jurors without invading their fact-finding role and identified instructions that correctly addressed their questions. The appellate court relied on decisions rejecting similar attacks on the provocation instructions, including the distinction between reducing first-degree murder and reducing murder to manslaughter. It therefore did not reach Nevarez’s alternative ineffective-assistance argument based on counsel’s acquiescence. Finally, the abstract correctly showed firearm enhancements on counts 2 and 3 and a stay of the entire count 4 sentence, so no correction was ordered. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A brief shooting sequence does not preclude premeditation when evidence supports planning, reflection, and a decision formed before the shots were fired.
- Arriving armed to join a known dispute and firing repeatedly at unarmed people walking away can support both premeditation and rejection of a self-defense theory.
- A trial court may answer a deliberating jury’s legal question by identifying complete and accurate standard instructions rather than creating a new explanation.
- The court left the ineffective-assistance claim unresolved because it rejected the underlying jury-note claim on its merits.
- No clerical correction was necessary because the abstract accurately reflected the imposed enhancements and the stay of the count 4 sentence.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision applies established California principles rather than announcing a new rule. It illustrates how travel to a confrontation, possession of a firearm, and the manner of firing can collectively support premeditation even when the final shooting follows a rapidly developing encounter. It also demonstrates the discretion trial courts retain under section 1138 when existing CALCRIM instructions accurately cover the jury’s concerns.
The affirmance leaves Nevarez’s convictions and aggregate life-without-parole-plus-25-years-to-life sentence intact. The opinion resolves all three appellate challenges adversely to him, while expressly avoiding any decision on whether trial counsel’s agreement to the jury-note response constituted ineffective assistance.