DA Letter_Redacted - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2) Reasonableness of Belief that Gonzalez Posed Imminent Danger The second requirement for establishing the justification of self-defense or defense of others is proof that Officer Ayala 's ,nd Officer Esquivel's beliefs that Gonzalez posed an imminent danger were reasonable under the circumstances. The ,allowing evidence supports the reasonableness of the officers' beliefs: • The officers had been briefed on the morning of June 23, 2013, that Gonzalez was wanted for the murder of her girlfriend, and Officer Ayala recognized Gonzalez as the wanted individual; • Officer Ayala was familiar with the criminal street gang, a group known for violent tactics , and believed the subjects in the garage, including Gonzalez, to be associated with that gang; • Gonzalez was holding what appeared to be a semiautomatic weapon; • Officer Ayala was in close range to Gonzalez as she approached him in an open alley with no areas of cover; • The tone in Officer Ayala's voice when he yelled "gun" was a scared one that Officer Esquivel had never before heard Officer Ayala use; • Officer Esquivel saw Officer Ayala shooting at Gonzalez and reasonably believed that she would engage in gunfire with officer Ayala . 3) Reasonable Force The third element required to establish the justification of self-defense or defense of others is that the force used is no greater than necessary to deal with the apparent danger. Here, the danger reasonably apparent to Officer Ayala was that Gonzalez, a person he knew to be a wanted murder suspect, was holding an apparent semiautomatic weapon and moving toward him in the alley . Under these circumstances, it was not disproportional force for Officer Ayala to respond with deadly force in self-defense. Officer Ayala first attempted to shoot at the garage wall and run for cover behind a patrol car. When he saw Gonzalez reaching ·•tith her left hand , he reasonably believed she was reaching for her firearm and fired two additional rounds to prevent _;onzalez from shooting at the officers. Officer Ayala was faced with an apparent deadly threat, and he responded with proportional force. As the Court of Appeal held: "The test is highly deferential to the police officer's need to protect himself and others ... In calculating whether the amount of force was excessive, a trier of fact must recognize that peace officers are often forced to make split-second judgments, in tense circumstances, concerning the amount of force required ." Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 527. Officer Ayala had no way of knowing that Gonzalez's weapon was a replica, and it was thus reasonable for him to use deadly force . Likewise, the danger reasonably apparent to Officer Esquivel was that he heard his partner yell "gun" and saw him fire shots at Gonzalez, who was approaching him in the alley. Under these circumstances, it was not disproportional force for Officer Esquivel to respond with deadly force to defend Officer Ayala's life. CONCLUSION In order to justly charge and convict Officer Ayala or Officer Esquivel of a crime, it would be the prosecu tion's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers did not act in self-defense or defense of others when they shot at Gonzalez. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the prosecution would be unable to carry its burden in this case . A jury analyzing these facts would likely and justly conclude that it was reasonable for Officer Ayala and Officer Esquivel to use the force that they did in this circumstance. Therefore, based upon a review of all of the evidence provided to and obtained by the OCDA, and pursuant to the applicable legal principles , it is our legal opinion that the evidence does not support a finding of criminal cu lpability on the part of Officer Ayala or Officer Esquivel , and that there is sufficient evidence that the officers ' actions were reasonable and justified under th e circumstances when they shot at Gonzalez on June 23, 2013 . t\CCordingly, the OCDA is closing its inquiry into this incident. 10