Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
The People v. Andrw Nehemiah Barraza
Date: 01-03-2025
Case Number: BF180557A
Judge: Judith K. Dulcich
Court: Superior Court, Kern County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney: Kern County, California District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Bakerfield Criminal Def ense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Bakersfield, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with murder.
Shortly after midnight, on March 11, 2020, Andrew Nehemiah Barraza (appellant) shot and killed Javier Rodriguez, Jr. in the street next to a gas station. A jury convicted appellant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a); count 1)[1] with an enhancement for intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the lying-in-wait special circumstance allegation. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found appellant suffered a prior strike conviction. (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term of 75 years to life in state prison.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. ADMISSION OF GANG EVIDENCE. The court addressed whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting gang evidence to prove the defendant acted with a gang motive rather than in self-defense when he was charged with first-degree murder.
CRIMINAL LAW. INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CLAIM. The court evaluated whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, thereby upholding the conviction of first-degree murder.
EVIDENCE. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ADMISSION ERROR. The court considered whether the purported error in admitting gang evidence was harmless, applying the standards from People v. Watson and Chapman v. California.
CRIMINAL LAW. SELF-DEFENSE AND HEAT OF PASSION. The judgment examined claims of self-defense and heat of passion, determining whether these defenses were plausible given the evidence from surveillance videos and other trial records.
Key Phrases First degree murder. Felon in possession. Gang evidence. Self-defense claim. Deliberation and premeditation.
Shortly after midnight, on March 11, 2020, Andrew Nehemiah Barraza (appellant) shot and killed Javier Rodriguez, Jr. in the street next to a gas station. A jury convicted appellant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a); count 1)[1] with an enhancement for intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the lying-in-wait special circumstance allegation. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found appellant suffered a prior strike conviction. (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term of 75 years to life in state prison.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. ADMISSION OF GANG EVIDENCE. The court addressed whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting gang evidence to prove the defendant acted with a gang motive rather than in self-defense when he was charged with first-degree murder.
CRIMINAL LAW. INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CLAIM. The court evaluated whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, thereby upholding the conviction of first-degree murder.
EVIDENCE. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ADMISSION ERROR. The court considered whether the purported error in admitting gang evidence was harmless, applying the standards from People v. Watson and Chapman v. California.
CRIMINAL LAW. SELF-DEFENSE AND HEAT OF PASSION. The judgment examined claims of self-defense and heat of passion, determining whether these defenses were plausible given the evidence from surveillance videos and other trial records.
Key Phrases First degree murder. Felon in possession. Gang evidence. Self-defense claim. Deliberation and premeditation.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of The People v. Andrw Nehemiah Barraza?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard The People v. Andrw Nehemiah Barraza?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Kern County, California, CA. The presiding judge was Judith K. Dulcich.
Who were the attorneys in The People v. Andrw Nehemiah Barraza?
Plaintiff's attorney: Kern County, California District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Bakerfield Criminal Def ense Lawyer Directory.
When was The People v. Andrw Nehemiah Barraza decided?
This case was decided on January 3, 2025.