F087667M
Cal. Ct. App. 5thAug 11, 2026Background
- A jury convicted Chavez of the first degree murders of Marilyn Cuervo and Crystal Hernandez and found true a multiple-murder special circumstance. 1
- The trial court denied Chavez's pretrial motion to sever the murder counts and to exclude each murder's evidence from the other case. 2
- The Cuervo evidence showed she was found dead in a dirt field with severe blunt-force injuries, DNA and witness testimony tied Chavez to her, and witnesses said Chavez admitted beating her. 3
- The Hernandez evidence showed Chavez called 911 from an abandoned motel, Hernandez was found brutally beaten nearby, and physical evidence linked Chavez to the motel room and weapons there. 4
- Defendant testified and denied killing either woman, claiming he found Hernandez injured and that Cuervo was attacked by unknown assailants. 5
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting both the severance/gross-unfairness claim and the sufficiency challenge to premeditation and deliberation. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the murder counts should have been severed 7 | People said the murders were cross-admissible and joinder was proper. | Chavez said joinder was prejudicial and evidence was not cross-admissible. | No abuse of discretion; joinder proper. 8 |
| Whether joinder caused gross unfairness 9 | People said any spillover was mitigated by instructions and strong evidence. | Chavez said the jury used each murder as propensity evidence. | No gross unfairness or due process violation. 10 |
| Whether enough evidence proved Cuervo murder was premeditated 11 | People relied on motive, planning in arming himself, and brutal prolonged attack. | Chavez said there was no planning and only weak motive. | Substantial evidence supported first degree murder. 12 |
| Whether enough evidence proved Hernandez murder was premeditated 13 | People relied on prior relationship, abuse, planning, and brutal attack. | Chavez said there was no planning or motive. | Substantial evidence supported first degree murder. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Simon, 1 Cal.5th 98 (Cal. 2016) (severance factors; clear showing of prejudice; gross unfairness standard 15)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2014) (joinder prejudice balancing and gross unfairness test 16)
- People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) (joinder can violate due process if grossly unfair 17)
- People v. Alcala, 43 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2008) (similarity required for cross-admissibility depends on purpose 18)
- People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (similarity standard for admitting other-act evidence to prove intent 19)
- People v. Soper, 45 Cal.4th 759 (Cal. 2009) (strong evidence in both joined cases can defeat severance prejudice 20)
- People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 734 (Cal. 2015) (jury deliberation length alone does not show prejudicial joinder 21)
- People v. Perez, 2 Cal.4th 1117 (Cal. 1992) (substantial-evidence review and premeditation analysis framework 22)
- People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (Cal. 1968) (planning, motive, and manner-of-killing factors for premeditation 23)
- People v. Stitely, 35 Cal.4th 514 (Cal. 2005) (premeditation can be formed quickly; the Anderson factors are not exclusive 24)
- People v. Koontz, 27 Cal.4th 1041 (Cal. 2002) (three Anderson factors describing planning, motive, and manner of killing 25)
- People v. Lenart, 32 Cal.4th 1107 (Cal. 2004) (Anderson factors are not the exclusive means of proving premeditation 26)
- People v. Isby, 30 Cal.2d 879 (Cal. 1947) (vicious, prolonged assault can support premeditation 27)
- People v. Lucero, 44 Cal.3d 1006 (Cal. 1988) (appellate court asks whether any rational trier of fact could find premeditation 28)