People v. Duenas
55 Cal. 4th 1
| Cal. | 2012Background
- People charged and convicted defendant Enrique Parra Duenas of first degree murder of Deputy Michael Hoenig; special circumstances to avoid lawful arrest and to know victim was a peace officer; penalty phase death sentence affirmed; pivotal guilt-phase and penalty-phase evidence including a videotaped interview, eyewitness identifications, and a computer animation used at trial.
- Guilt phase: shooting occurred after deputy signaled to stop defendant on bicycle; defendant fired multiple shots from various locations, killing Hoenig; shell casings recovered; defendant arrested, gave statements, and a gun linked to him.
- Defendant’s defense: presented no guilt-phase evidence; mitigation through social background and drug use presented by relatives during penalty phase.
- Animation issue: trial admitted a four-minute computer animation illustrating experts’ opinions on shooting sequence; trial court cautioned it was demonstrative, not exact recreation, and it was admitted under Evid. Code 352.
- Penalty phase: victim-impact evidence admitted; CALJIC No. 8.85 and 8.88 discussed and found adequately explained by prior California law; defendant challenged lack of explicit life-without-parole instruction but court upheld prior holdings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror excusal for cause precedent | 4593, 5637, 6611 grounds supported by state | excusal improperly based on death penalty views | no reversible error; state of mind supported by substantial evidence |
| Admission of computer animation | anim. fairly represents prosecution theory on premeditation | anim. speculative and era of scientific certainty | admission not abuse of discretion; harmless evidence under 352 and demonstrative purpose |
| Penalty-phase instructions adequacy | CALJIC 8.85/8.88 sufficient; no error in not stating exact procedures | instruction flaws misstate law | no error; California law affirmed (no Apprendi-style requirement) |
| Lack of explicit life without parole definition | CALJIC 8.84 sufficient to inform parole eligibility | Kelly and Simmons require clearer conveyance | no change to prior rule; instruction adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Blair, 36 Cal.4th 686 (2005) (guidelines for capital-juror challenges on voir dire)
- Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) (jurors cannot be excluded solely for distaste for death penalty)
- Witt v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for excusing prospective jurors in capital cases)
- Guilt-phase voir dire: Lewis, 43 Cal.4th 415 (2008) (state-of-mind findings binding on appeal)
- People v. McDermott, 28 Cal.4th 946 (2002) (deference to trial court on voir dire findings)
- People v. Barnett, 17 Cal.4th 1044 (1998) (deference to trial court on voir dire findings)
- People v. Lynch, 50 Cal.4th 693 (2010) (graphic- imagery questions in voir dire balanced with protestations of fairness)
- Hood v. People, 53 Cal.App.4th 965 (1997) (anim. as demonstrative evidence; not substantive evidence)
- Serge v. Pa., 896 A.2d 1170 (2006) (anim. evidence as demonstrative; acceptance standards)