People v. Saravia CA2/5

── People v. Saravia CA2/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 P. v. Saravia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, B337430 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. TA154412) JOHN EDWIN SARAVIA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Affirmed. Jeralyn Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Marc A. Kohm and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  A jury convicted John Edwin Saravia (defendant) of the first degree murder of Jonathan Cabrera (Cabrera). The trial court sentenced defendant to 60 years to life in prison. We are asked to decide (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a juror mid-trial for expressing a view, uninformed by evidence at trial, that video evidence had been “doctored”; and (2) whether the court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter on a heat of passion theory. I. BACKGROUND A. The Offense Conduct In late March 2021, Cabrera’s wife, Yvette Villalba (Yvette), and his teenaged stepchildren, Yoel and Jade, were unloading groceries from their car and bringing them into their home in the Jasmine Garden apartment complex. J.M.,1 his girlfriend Maryana Cibrian (Cibrian), and her younger sister walked past the Cabrera family’s apartment, and Yoel told his mother that he believed the three passersby were responsible for shooting a paintball or BB pellet into the family’s backyard. Yoel and J.M. exchanged glances and then words, with the latter being “aggressive.” Before matters could escalate further, Yvette directed Yoel to go inside their home; J.M. and his female companions walked away. Minutes later, as Yvette and her daughter were still bringing in groceries, J.M. returned with defendant and a group 1 We refer to J.M. by his initials because the record contains conflicting testimony about his age at the time of Cabrera’s murder. 2 of other young men. In a manner that was “aggressive,” defendant asked for Yoel. While standing on her apartment’s covered front porch, Yvette, who believed her son was in danger, talked with defendant, who was the group’s spokesman, and the group ultimately left. In the aftermath of the confrontation, however, Yvette repositioned the home’s security camera so that it better covered the front porch area. Two days later, as Cabrera, Yoel, and Jade were bringing in laundry from their car to the apartment, another confrontation involving defendant and the Cabrera family occurred. As J.M., Cibrian, and her sister walked past the Cabrera apartment, J.M. made a comment that irked Cabrera and he told J.M. to respect his elders. J.M. left the area but vowed “we’re gonna get you.” Moments later, J.M. returned with defendant and a group of other young men who closed in around the porch. As the men approached, Yvette and Jade unsuccessfully tried to get Cabrera off the front porch and into the apartment. Defendant did not say