People v. Somerville CA3

── People v. Somerville CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 P. v. Somerville CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) THE PEOPLE, C102004 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. v. STKCRFE20220001128) ROBERT ALSTON SOMERVILLE, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Robert Somerville was living in a commercial building in Stockton. Early one morning, he woke to the sound of someone trying to get inside the building. Not realizing there was a fire outside and firefighters were trying to get in, defendant grabbed his gun, announced he had a firearm, told the perceived intruders to move away, and shot “a couple rounds at the door.” Firefighter Captain Max Fortuna (captain) was struck and died. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. Defendant contends his conviction should be reversed for four reasons: (1) the presence of uniformed firefighters and a fire engine at trial denied him a fair trial; (2) his counsel’s closing argument violated his Sixth Amendment rights; (3) the trial court prejudicially erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the right to defend real or personal property; and (4) cumulative prejudice from these errors warrants reversal. We find no error to accumulate and affirm. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Early in the morning on January 31, 2022, a fire department dispatcher received multiple calls regarding a fire near the Crosstown Freeway and Aurora Street in Stockton. The dispatcher instructed Engine 2 to respond and described it as an outdoor fire. A few minutes later, an alarm company called the dispatcher to report an audible alarm at a commercial building at an address on South Aurora Street. The dispatcher then updated Engine 2 on the building alarm and location. Engine 2 arrived carrying three firefighters – the driver, a probationary firefighter, and captain. After opening the outer property gate with a saw, probationary firefighter started spraying the area. Captain told them they needed to get inside the building, so he and driver went to a roll-up door and started cutting into the padlocks with a saw and an angle grinder. Meanwhile, inside the building, defendant was asleep in his room. One of his employees (employee) was also inside the building sleeping in a trailer. Defendant woke to the sound of cutting noises in the back of the building that made him think someone was trying to break in. He didn’t know there was a fire happening. He did smell smoke, but it smelled the “same way [as] when you’re cutting metal.” He “went out there and said, ‘Move away from the building. I have a firearm.’ ” After “nobody said anything,” he “squeezed a couple of rounds at the door,” specifically “down in the corner” because he was “not trying to shoot anybody.” He just wanted to “scare them off” because he: (1) had a “problem with people trying to break in,” (2) had “a lot of valuable equipment in there,” (3) had a “problem in the back trailer with homeless people,” and (4) figured people brazen enough to break in had to be armed. He also had macular degeneration and could not see well in the dark. At some point, he wok