Reported / Citable
Background
Donte Haddock and Anthony Frank, members of the Lincoln Park Bloods gang in San Diego, were convicted of two murders, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder stemming from gang-related shootings in 2011 and 2013. Both received sentences of life without parole plus decades. At trial, the prosecution introduced a rap song performed by Glenn G., an uncharged coconspirator, to establish his animus toward the rival Skyline Piru Bloods gang and the defendants’ motive to follow his directives.
After the gang enhancements were vacated on a prior appeal, appellants filed new trial motions under the Racial Justice Act (Penal Code section 745) and newly enacted Evidence Code section 352.2. They argued that the rap song — and critically, a spoken-word introduction featuring racial slurs, references to guns, and the sounds of 14 gunshots — injected racial bias into the trial. The trial court denied the motions, finding the defendants had not made a prima facie showing of an RJA violation. The court also denied their request for county-level discovery on racial disparities in special circumstance charging.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal conditionally reversed. On the creative expression issue, the court rejected the defendants’ argument: because the Supreme Court held in Aguirre that Evidence Code section 352.2 does not apply retroactively, and because the prior appellate opinion in Frank I already upheld admission of the rap song under section 352, the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigation.
However, on the RJA claims, the court found the trial court committed two legal errors. First, the trial court improperly weighed Haddock’s credibility at the prima facie stage when he testified the jury heard the song’s excluded introduction — featuring racial slurs, violent imagery, and simulated gunfire. At the prima facie stage, courts must accept the defendant’s factual allegations as true; credibility determinations are reserved for the evidentiary hearing. Second, the trial court erroneously conducted a prejudice analysis at the prima facie stage, even though prejudice is assessed only after a violation is proven.
On RJA discovery, the court found the trial court applied two incorrect legal standards: it required case-specific facts of racial bias in addition to the county-level statistical evidence the defendants presented, and it prematurely applied the Alhambra discovery balancing factors before finding good cause. The court held that statistical evidence alone — here showing Black defendants were charged with special circumstances at a rate of 1.36 compared to 0.80 for White defendants — can establish good cause for RJA discovery.
Key Takeaways
- At the prima facie stage of an RJA claim, trial courts must accept a defendant’s factual allegations as true and may not make credibility determinations or assess prejudice — those steps occur only at the evidentiary hearing.
- A prosecutor’s presentation of racially charged material to the jury can constitute “bias or animus” under the RJA even if the prosecutor did not author the language, and even if the prosecutor conceded the material should be excluded.
- Statistical evidence of racial disparities in charging — without additional case-specific facts — can establish good cause for RJA discovery under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (d).
- Evidence Code section 352.2 (the creative expression statute) does not apply retroactively per Aguirre, and the law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of evidentiary rulings upheld on prior appeal absent an intervening change in controlling law.
- The Alhambra discovery balancing factors apply only after good cause is established, not as part of the threshold showing.
Why It Matters
This opinion is an important guide for trial courts handling the growing volume of Racial Justice Act claims. It clarifies the strict limits on what judges can consider at the prima facie stage — essentially a paper review accepting the defendant’s facts as true — and reinforces that the RJA was designed to facilitate, not obstruct, the examination of potential racial bias. The court’s holding that statistical evidence alone can support RJA discovery removes a significant barrier that had blocked defendants from accessing the very data needed to prove their claims.
For prosecutors, the decision underscores the risks of introducing racially charged evidence at trial, even when offered for a legitimate purpose like establishing motive. Material that a prosecutor herself agrees should be excluded — as happened with the rap song introduction here — may become the centerpiece of an RJA challenge. For defense attorneys, the opinion provides a roadmap for building RJA claims at each stage and confirms that county-level charging data is a viable foundation for discovery.