People v. Chandra CA4/1, D085719

Anurag Chandra was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder after intentionally ramming a car carrying six teenage boys as retaliation for a prank (mooning/ding-dong ditch).
The crash killed three of the boys and injured the remaining three. Evidence included eyewitness accounts, accident reconstruction, and data showing Chandra’s high-speed pursuit and impact with the boys’ vehicle.
Chandra admitted being enraged, following the boys to “hold them accountable,” but claimed the collision was unintentional and blamed the Prius driver.
The jury found Chandra guilty after about two and a half hours of deliberation; Chandra was sentenced to a term of life without parole plus 21 years to life.
Chandra appealed, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and flawed jury instructions.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting all of Chandra’s legal challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct (Doyle error, burden, witness comment)	No prejudicial misconduct or errors; any statements were proper impeachment.	Prosecutor improperly referenced post-Miranda silence, lessened burden, commented on lack of defense witnesses.	No error; no Doyle violation; issues forfeited or properly cured.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel acted reasonably and omitted meritless objections.	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to alleged errors.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudicial errors occurred.
Admission of defendant’s postarrest statements	Proper Miranda waiver; no coercion.	Statements were coerced/deceived and should be excluded.	Statements admissible; valid waiver; no coercion.
Exclusion of evidence (seatbelts/weight)	Not relevant; would confuse jury; not superseding cause of death.	Evidence should show contributory negligence of victims.	Properly excluded; would confuse jury; not a legal defense.
Kill zone and other jury instructions	Substantial evidence supported instructions given.	Instructions (kill zone, consciousness of guilt) not warranted; pinpoint instruction wrongly denied.	Instructions correct; no error.

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (use of post-Miranda silence to impeach defendant violates due process)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda rights required in custodial interrogation)
Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (prior inconsistent statements during police interview may be used for impeachment)
People v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (kill zone instruction appropriate if evidence reasonably supports inference of intent to kill all in zone)
People v. Hall, 41 Cal.3d 826 (ordinary evidentiary rules do not impermissibly infringe on defense right to present evidence)
People v. Armitage, 194 Cal.App.3d 405 (victim’s contributory negligence not a defense unless sole/superseding cause)