Filed 11/4/21 P. v. Yanez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E075260
v. (Super.Ct.No. INF1800112)
CRISTIAN SEAN YANEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. James T. Latting and
Dean Benjamini, Judges. Affirmed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda Lloyd and Steve Oetting,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Cristian Sean Yanez was convicted of assault with a
firearm, attempted criminal threats, and other crimes. He contends on appeal that certain
1
evidence was wrongfully admitted. We find no error and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The charged crimes occurred in three incidents over the span of two nights.
A. Neil’s Lounge
On January 7, 2018, Yanez and codefendant Joel Vargas (who is not a party to this
appeal) entered Neil’s Lounge in Indio. About five minutes later, an altercation broke out
between Yanez and Vargas on the one hand and a group of other patrons on the other.
Yanez and Vargas were members of the Jackson Terrace gang, and the others were
members of the rival North Side Indio gang.
When bar employees escorted the groups out, Yanez stated something like “How
do you want to die today?” to one of the employees. Yanez also repeatedly stated
something to the effect of “Who’s going to die tonight?” While in the parking lot, Yanez
opened the front passenger door to his Dodge Charger and grabbed an object, after which
Vargas told Yanez to put the object away. Witnesses believed the object was likely a
gun, but they were not sure. Yanez began driving away, with Vargas in the passenger
seat, but soon made a U-turn back to the bar and fired one or two shots in the air.
1
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
B. Signature Party Rentals
Yanez and Vargas returned to Neil’s Lounge a week later. A woman with them
had had drinks and did not want to drive home, so Vargas drove her in her white SUV
while Yanez followed in his car.
At approximately 9:45 p.m., an employee at Signature Party Rentals in Indio saw
two suspicious cars parked near the business and went to the parking lot to move his car
inside. As the employee went to his car, a white SUV drove away, while the other car, a
Dodge Charger, drove up to the employee. After a brief exchange, during which the man
in the Dodge Charger asked if there were “[a]ny problems,” the Dodge Charger left, and
the employee moved his car. The employee then heard approximately six gunshots, four
of which hit his vehicle. The employee later identified Yanez from a photographic lineup
as the man in the Dodge Charger.
C. Palo Verde Apartments
Approximately half an hour after the Signature Party Rentals incident, a vehicle
approached three teenagers in front of the Palo Verde Apartments in Indio and a man
began asking where they were from. The teenagers understood the question as asking
whether they were part of a gang. The teenagers responded, “We don’t bang.” One of
the two men in the vehicle then got out, and while holding a handgun, demanded that the
teenagers say their names and “Fuck 44” or “Fuck North Side,” and they complied.
The teenagers then began walking away, and the man hit one of the teenagers in
the back of the head with the handgun. The man told the teenagers to keep walking, got
3
in his car, and, as the vehicle was leaving, fired a single shot toward the teenagers, hitting
one of the teenagers in the leg. Someone in the car was then heard saying “JT.”
D. Investigation and Trial
During his interrogation, Yanez admitted that he had a “personal beef” with
someone at Neil’s Lounge on January 7 and that he fired the gun from his car that night.
Yanez also admitted that he fired the shots at Signature Party Rentals as well as the shot
at Palo Verde Apartments.
Yanez was charged with eight counts: for the Neil’s Lounge incident, criminal
threats (§ 422; count 7) and grossly negligent shooting (§ 246.3, subd. (a); count 8); for
the Signature Party Rentals incident, assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 5)
and shooting at a vehicle (§ 246; count 6); and for the Palo Verde Apartments incident,
three counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 1-3) and one count of
shooting from a vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c); count 4). A number of enhancements were
alleged as well, including gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) for the counts from
the Palo Verde Apartments incident.
At trial, an expert in criminal street gangs testified that Jackson Terrace is a gang
located in the Indio area. The expert stated that one of the “biggest rivals” of Jackson
Terrace is the North Side Indio gang, and in January 2018 there was a “huge feud going
on” between the two gangs. A second expert in criminal street gangs opined that Yanez
and Vargas were active members of Jackson Terrace, that the patrons Yanez and Vargas
4
confronted at Neil’s Lounge were members of the North Side Indio gang, and that the
Palo Verde Apartments incident was done for the benefit of Jackson Terrace.
The jury acquitted Yanez on count 3 and hung on the lesser offense of simple
assault, acquitted on count 7 and found him guilty of the lesser offense of attempted
criminal threats, and hung on count 8. The jury found Yanez guilty on all other counts as
well as the gang enhancements attached to counts 1, 2, and 4. Pursuant to a stipulated
2
sentence, the trial court sentenced Yanez to 21 years in prison.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Yanez contends that the erroneous admission of two categories of
evidence requires reversal, whether each error is considered individually or cumulatively.
The first category is evidence relating to a prior incident from September 2017 involving
Yanez and Vargas. The second category is evidence identifying the other individuals at
Neil’s Lounge on January 7 as North Side Indio gang members. We find no error.
A. September 2017 Incident
In September 2017, Yanez was driving his Dodge Charger with Vargas and
another passenger when they were pulled over for vehicle and driving violations. The
officer noticed open beers inside the vehicle, and once other officers arrived on the scene,
the officers searched Yanez’s vehicle. The search revealed two loaded pistols,
2
In addition to the counts and enhancements already mentioned, the jury found
true personal use of a firearm allegations (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) on counts 1, 2, and 5, and
a personal infliction of great bodily injury allegation (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) on count 1.
As part of the stipulated sentence, the People dismissed counts 3 and 8.
5
ammunition, an empty ammunition box, and an expended shell casing. One of the pistols
was located underneath the front passenger seat. Yanez contends on appeal, as he did at
trial, that none of the evidence of this incident should have been admitted.
“Character evidence, sometimes described as evidence of propensity or disposition
to engage in a specific conduct, is generally inadmissible to prove a person’s conduct on
a specified occasion. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) Evidence that a person committed
a crime, civil wrong, or other act may be admitted, however, not to prove a person’s
predisposition to commit such an act, but rather to prove some other material fact, such as
that person’s intent or identity. (Id. § 1101, subd. (b).) We review the trial court’s
decision whether to admit evidence, including evidence of the commission of other
3
crimes, for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 841.)
We agree with the People that evidence of the September 2017 incident was
relevant to show that the object Yanez retrieved from his car while being asked to leave
Neil’s Lounge was a gun, which in turn bears on whether he intended his statements
(such as “Who’s going to die tonight?”) to be understood as threats. Witnesses at Neil’s
3
The issue is often framed as the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes.
(See, e.g., People v. Clark (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 939, 957.) Although charges stemming
from this September 2017 incident were apparently brought against Yanez (according to
his opening brief on appeal), this fact is unimportant, as we ask whether the other acts
were charged in the case at bar, not whether charges were ever brought for the other acts.
(See People v. Kipp (1998) 18 Cal.4th 349, 369 [“Evidence that a defendant has
committed crimes other than those currently charged is not admissible to prove that the
defendant is a person of bad character or has a criminal disposition”], italics added;
CALCRIM No. 375; cf. People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 597 [“Cases sometimes
describe Evidence Code section 1101(b) evidence as ‘prior offenses’ or ‘prior bad acts.’
Both shorthand formulations are imprecise”].)
6
Lounge testified that they saw Yanez open the front passenger door to his car. None of
those witnesses, however, were able to clearly identify whether the object Yanez then
retrieved from his car was a gun. Additional evidence tending to show that the object
was indeed a gun was relevant to support the prosecution’s contention that Yanez
intended to make a threat. (See People v. Toledo (2001) 26 Cal.4th 221, 228 [criminal
threat requires “that the defendant made the threat ‘with the specific intent that the
statement . . . is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it
out”].) Evidence showing that just four months earlier Yanez had been pulled over in the
same vehicle with a loaded pistol under the front passenger seat fit the bill.
In contending otherwise, Yanez notes that the Neil’s Lounge incident involved
firearm use, whereas the September 2017 incident involved mere possession. As well,
Yanez states that there was nothing unlawful about his firearm possession in September
2017. However, neither of these points makes a difference. Even if we were to accept
these contentions as true, the fact remains that the September 2017 incident was relevant
evidence of a material issue for one of Yanez’s charges.
“Even if evidence of the uncharged conduct is sufficiently similar to the charged
crimes to be relevant for a nonpropensity purpose, the trial court must next determine
whether the evidence’s probative value is ‘substantially outweighed by the probability
that its admission [would] . . . create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing
the issues, or of misleading the jury.’” (People v. Chhoun (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 26, citing
Evid. Code, § 352.)
7
The trial court properly exercised its discretion under Evidence Code section 352.
The evidence was significant and not merely cumulative. Even though other evidence
also helped show that there was a gun in Yanez’s car (such as the evidence relating to the
shots fired from his car), the September 2017 incident made it more probable that the
object Yanez drew from the front passenger door—an object witnesses could not
identify—was a gun; there had been a gun stored underneath the front passenger seat four
months earlier. Moreover, there was no substantial danger of undue prejudice, of
confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. “‘“In applying [Evidence Code] section
352, ‘prejudicial’ is not synonymous with ‘damaging.’”’ [Citation.] ‘‘“‘[A]ll evidence
which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant’s case.’”’’
[Citation.] The ‘prejudice’ which [Evidence Code] section 352 seeks to avoid is that
which ““‘“uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an
individual and which has very little effect on the issues.”’”” (People v. Cage (2015) 62
Cal.4th 256, 275.) Here, nothing about the September 2017 incident would uniquely tend
to evoke an emotional bias against Yanez, and the effect the evidence had on the issues
was significant. Accordingly, we find no error in the admission of the September 2017
incident.
B. North Side Indio Evidence
During trial, while one of the criminal street gang experts was on the stand, the
People sought to admit into evidence a mugshot of Jason Rosas, a member of the North
Side Indio gang and part of the group of those gang members at Neil’s Lounge on
8
January 7. Yanez objected. During a sidebar conference, Yanez noted that the
questioning was about the Neil’s Lounge incident but that the only gang allegations
alleged related to the Palo Verde Apartments incident. He continued: “And the next
exhibit is the gentleman referred to as Grizzly. So I’d object to the relevance of more and
more of these mugshot photos and all this stuff related to things where there’s not gang
allegations charged.” The People countered that the evidence was relevant to show why
Yanez and Vargas got into a confrontation, got kicked out of the bar, and “through their
frustration” fired shots from their car. The People also noted that the evidence would be
relevant to show Yanez’s and Vargas’s allegiances to Jackson Terrace, North Side
Indio’s rival gang. On appeal, Yanez contends that the evidence was erroneously
admitted.
To the extent Yanez objected to “all this stuff related to things” not directly
involving gang allegations, we deem the issue forfeited. (See Boeken v. Philip Morris,
Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1676 [issue not preserved for appeal where “vague
‘running’ or ‘standing’ objection . . . was not ‘directed to a particular, identifiable body of
evidence’”].) Like his statement at trial, Yanez’s references in his appellate briefs to
“gang evidence in connection with the Neil’s lounge incident” and “other evidence”
regarding the North Side Indio gang members at Neil’s Lounge are simply too vague.
The objections preserved for appeal—that is, those pertaining to Rosas’s and
Aaron Howard’s (“Grizzly’s”) mugshots—were correctly overruled. Howard was with
Rosas at Neil’s Lounge. Howard’s mugshot included his tattoos, which in turn included
9
symbols that the expert stated were common signs and symbols of the North Side Indio
gang. As the People noted at trial, the mugshots were relevant to show, first, why Yanez
would have gotten so upset as to make threats and fire his pistol, and second, the extent
4
of Yanez’s allegiance to Jackson Terrace.
Additionally, the mugshots were not excludable under Evidence Code section 352,
as we find nothing (and Yanez offers nothing) about them that would have created undue
prejudice, confused the issues, or misled the jury. We find no error in the trial court’s
admission of this evidence.
Because we have found no error, we reject Yanez’s claim of cumulative error, as
there is nothing to accumulate.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:
SLOUGH
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
4
Yanez does not contend that the expert’s statements that Rosas and Howard
were North Side Indio gang members were based solely on the mugshots. Rosas was
identified as a North Side Indio gang member before the mugshots were offered into
evidence, and the expert described being familiar with Howard personally, including the
expert’s interventions to “get [Howard] away from the gang lifestyle.”
10