In re Sirypangno CA4/1
D078705
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 14, 2021Background
- In 2008 a jury convicted Konesavanh Donald Sirypangno as an aider and abettor of first‑degree murder, attempted murder (victim K.A.), and assault with a firearm; his codefendant David Phommachanh personally shot the victims (Thompson was killed; K.A. seriously wounded).
- At trial the court instructed the jury with the pre‑Canizales CALCRIM No. 600 kill‑zone instruction and also instructed on general aiding and abetting and the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory.
- In 2019 the California Supreme Court decided People v. Canizales, refining the kill‑zone doctrine and prescribing a two‑part test and more exacting instruction language (the standard CALCRIM No. 600 was revised thereafter).
- Sirypangno sought habeas relief arguing the kill‑zone instruction was legally erroneous under Canizales; the People conceded the instruction as given was legally insufficient under Canizales and that the error was prejudicial.
- The Court of Appeal accepted the concession: although the evidence supported giving some form of kill‑zone instruction, the pre‑Canizales instruction used was legally inadequate and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so Sirypangno’s attempted murder conviction was vacated and the case remanded to permit the People to retry the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the kill‑zone instruction given (pre‑Canizales CALCRIM No. 600) was legally proper | Sirypangno: instruction unwarranted/legally insufficient under Canizales | People: instruction was defective under Canizales (conceded) | Instruction was legally insufficient under Canizales and should not have been given as phrased |
| Whether Canizales applies retroactively to final convictions | Sirypangno: Canizales applies and entitles collateral relief | People: did not dispute retroactivity (conceded applicability) | Canizales announces a substantive rule that applies retroactively; collateral relief is available |
| Whether the record contained sufficient evidence to warrant a kill‑zone theory at all | Sirypangno: no sufficient evidence to support any kill‑zone instruction | People/Court: evidence could support a jury inference that a kill‑zone existed around Thompson (K.A. was within it) | The evidence was sufficient to warrant a kill‑zone instruction in form, but the actual instruction given was legally defective |
| Prejudice standard and effect of error | Sirypangno: error prejudicial and requires vacatur | People: conceded they could not show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt | Chapman applies to legally inadequate kill‑zone instruction; error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — attempted murder conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (2019) (refines kill‑zone doctrine; sets two‑part test and criticizes standard CALCRIM No. 600)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (2002) (adopted kill‑zone / concurrent‑intent theory for attempted murder)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for federal constitutional error)
- People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (2019) (held Chapman applies to legally inadequate alternative‑theory instructions)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (relevant to accomplice liability and instructional error review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules to final convictions)