Background
Tanajae Dontrail Smith was prosecuted in Kern County for shootings in October and December 2022. In the first incident, after a nightclub confrontation, Smith directed G.B. to follow a Toyota Tacoma and pull alongside it; he then fired multiple shots toward the truck, striking driver A.R. in the shoulder. In the second, Smith and others left another nightclub after an altercation involving M.A. Smith and O.T. waited in a Mitsubishi, followed an Escalade and Mercedes, and Smith fired 12 shots toward the Escalade while leaning from a rear window. A firearm recovered from the Mitsubishi was connected through ballistics examination to bullets and casings from both shootings.
A jury convicted Smith of offenses including premeditated attempted murder, assault with a firearm, shooting at occupied vehicles, three counts of unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm, and two counts of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. It acquitted him of two conspiracy counts and one attempted-murder count, instead convicting him on that count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and it rejected the alleged great-bodily-injury enhancements. After a bifurcated court trial on aggravating factors, the trial court denied probation and imposed life with the possibility of parole plus 35 years four months, with several terms stayed.
Smith raised four appellate challenges: admission of D.N.'s testimony about the shooting's psychological effect, prosecutorial misconduct in examining M.A. and Detective Barajas and in closing argument, failure to instruct on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm as a lesser included offense on counts 14 and 28, and cumulative error. The Fifth District considered preservation, the merits, and alternative harmless-error grounds before affirming.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Smith's relevance objection preserved only part of his victim-impact claim, while his challenges to other testimony and closing remarks were forfeited; it nevertheless addressed the merits. D.N.'s statements about PTSD, shock, and a "bad mental loop" were relevant to his perception, memory, and credibility because he had been intoxicated, asleep before the shooting, and unable to recall some details. The court alternatively found any error harmless under state and federal standards, citing Smith's admissions, G.B.'s testimony, surveillance evidence, and ballistics evidence.
The prosecutorial-misconduct claims were forfeited because Smith did not object on that ground or request an admonition, and neither futility nor an incurable-harm exception applied. On the merits, the prosecutor's comparison of M.A.'s trial questioning with his earlier interview was permissible, and his inconsistent statements were available for impeachment; unlike cases involving an unavailable accomplice's confession, M.A. and Barajas both testified and could be cross-examined. Closing argument drew reasonable inferences about the occupants' state of mind and subsequent conduct. Any assumed misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given Smith's admissions, O.T.'s eyewitness account, video evidence, and matching firearm evidence.
Although grossly negligent discharge under Penal Code section 246.3 is necessarily included in shooting at an occupied vehicle under section 246, an instruction requires substantial evidence supporting the lesser rather than greater offense. Bullet strikes, shell casings, the driver's wound, and the Escalade's extensive damage showed deliberate targeting, not aimless firing; Smith's warning-shot account was speculative against that evidence. Any instructional error was also harmless because the attempted-murder and attempted-manslaughter verdicts necessarily reflected intentional conduct. With no prejudicial errors to accumulate, the court rejected cumulative error and affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Calling testimony victim-impact evidence does not replace the ordinary relevance inquiry, and evidence bearing on a witness's perception or recollection may be admissible during the guilt phase.
- A relevance objection preserved only part of Smith's evidentiary claim, while hearsay objections did not preserve his later prosecutorial-misconduct theory.
- Questioning based on a witness's prior inconsistent statements was proper impeachment where the witness and investigating detective both testified and remained available for cross-examination.
- A lesser-included-offense instruction was unsupported because the physical evidence showed that Smith targeted occupied vehicles rather than merely firing in a grossly negligent manner.
- The court supplied alternative harmless-error holdings and rejected cumulative error because there were no prejudicial errors to combine.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision applies established California rules rather than announcing a new legal standard. It illustrates how testimony concerning a shooting's emotional effect can remain relevant to credibility without becoming an improper appeal for sympathy, particularly when the witness's memory and perception are disputed.
The opinion also demonstrates the independent consequences of forfeiture and the difference between legitimate impeachment and placing unproven accusations before a jury. Its instructional analysis ties the need for a lesser-offense instruction to concrete evidence, and its alternative prejudice rulings show why the challenged trial rulings did not warrant reversal.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket