NEWS: Kate Steinle Killing: ‘Momentary Possession’ Cited In Appeal Of Conviction - Jose Ines Garcia Zarate Claims He Did Not Know He Was Holding A Gun Until It Went Off
Jan 16, 2019

(Bay City News) - The man who was convicted of possessing the gun that killed Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier in 2015 has appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial judge failed to give a key jury instruction.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was convicted in San Francisco Superior Court in 2017 of being an ex-felon in possession of a gun. The jury acquitted him of the murder of Steinle, who was killed on July 1, 2015, by a ricocheting bullet from a gun held by Zarate.

Zarate was sentenced in January 2018 to three years in prison. A Mexican citizen, he was in the United States illegally at the time of the shooting and had been deported five times.

In an appeal filed last week with the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco, Zarate argues that his rights were violated because trial judge Samuel Feng failed to give the jury an instruction on the concept of momentary possession.

That instruction advises jurors that gun possession is not illegal if it was for only “a momentary or transitory period” and for the purpose of disposing of the firearm.

Zarate contends that he picked up a package wrapped in rags under a chair at the pier and did not know he had a gun until it fired accidentally. He then immediately threw the gun into the bay.

The gun had been stolen from the car of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officer.

Zarate’s appeal attorney, Cliff Gardner, wrote that because that claim “was the central theory of defense, the trial court was required to instruct on the defense of transitory possession.”

The appeal asks for reversal of his conviction and a new trial. A hearing on the appeal has not yet been set. The next step in the case will be the filing of a prosecution response.

Separately, Zarate faces two federal charges of being an ex-felon and an undocumented person in possession of a gun.

He claims that a federal trial on those charges would amount to unconstitutional double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco has postponed the federal trial until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a similar case from Alabama concerning double jeopardy.

Copyright © 2019 by Bay City News, Inc

back to top...