California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Gomez is that use of animal imagery in criminal proceedings does not violate the Racial Justice Act when the animal reference is benign, endearing, and used solely to explain legal concepts rather than to dehumanize or exhibit racial bias, under circumstances where an objective observer would understand the comparison relates to the state of evidence rather than character traits.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, San Diego County.

Defendant Appellant was Daniel Diaz Gomez — the individual convicted of vehicle theft who challenged both prosecutorial use of animal analogy and sentencing errors.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution in this criminal case involving vehicle theft and conspiracy charges.

The suit sounded in criminal charges including vehicle theft, conspiracy, and receiving stolen property. No cross-claims applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were on September 27, 2023, a deputy discovered Gomez driving a vehicle towing a stolen motorhome using improvised equipment including stabilizing bars taken from an unoccupied property workshop, with two accomplices present and no permission from the owners.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court convicted Gomez on counts 1, 2, and 4, sentenced him to six years on count 1 (three years doubled by strike prior), four years stayed on count 2, and one year concurrent on count 4, but failed to make required findings on prior conviction allegations and did not obtain personal admission from defendant on strike prior.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1) Whether prosecutor's and defense counsel's use of "John the dog" analogy to explain circumstantial evidence violated the Racial Justice Act; 2) Whether various sentencing errors required remand for resentencing.

The Appellate Court held that the dog analogy did not constitute racially discriminatory language under the RJA because it portrayed an endearing pet described as "extremely intelligent" and was used solely to explain circumstantial evidence, not to dehumanize or appeal to racial bias, though counsel would be wise to use different analogies in the future. The court also held that remand for resentencing was required due to lack of findings on Penal Code section 666.5 prior convictions and absence of personal admission on strike prior.

The case is inapplicable when animal imagery is derogatory, threatening, racially charged, or used to suggest negative character traits rather than to explain legal concepts, or when the defendant makes timely objection preserving the RJA claim for appeal.

The case leaves open the precise boundaries of what animal references constitute "racially discriminatory language" under different factual circumstances, and whether Assembly Bill No. 1071's emphasis on "low threshold" for RJA claims will affect future analysis of similar analogies.