People v. Duran CA4/1, D077135

Background

Defendant Pablo Duran admitted bludgeoning victim Robert Pierro to death with a hammer but claimed self-defense; no murder weapon was found at the scene.
Crime scene and forensic evidence showed multiple blows (minimum 12 strikes; at least eight after victim was on the ground) and blood on a hat; blood on a sweatshirt and glove thrown from Duran’s car matched Pierro by DNA.
Duran fled the scene, led Border Patrol on a high‑speed chase, attempted a carjacking, then fled to Mexico for ~1 year before capture.
At trial the defense emphasized Pierro’s alleged violent propensity and methamphetamine use; prosecution presented Duran’s prior convictions, drug use, flight, and the physical/forensic evidence.
Jury convicted Duran of first‑degree murder (true finding of deadly‑weapon use) and attempted carjacking; court sentenced him to 26 years to life + 4.5 years.
On appeal Duran raised evidentiary rulings, jury‑instruction claims (duty to retreat, heat‑of‑passion, unanimity), prosecutorial‑misconduct claims, ineffective assistance, cumulative error, and sought independent review of sealed pretrial proceedings.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Duran’s Argument	Held
Evidentiary rulings re: victim character	Exclusions were proper under Evid. Code §1103 and §352; trial admitted substantial violence evidence	Court improperly excluded relevant victim‑propensity evidence	No abuse of discretion; excluded items were cumulative or not probative; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Admission of Duran’s prior convictions/uncharged misconduct	Admissible when Duran put character at issue; prior felonies show moral turpitude/propensity and consciousness of guilt	Admission unduly prejudicial and unnecessary	Properly admitted under Lindberg/Castro and §1103(b); not unduly prejudicial
Duty to retreat instruction	No sua sponte duty to give optional no‑retreat paragraph absent request; evidence did not show Duran considered retreating	Court should have instructed jury that defendant had no duty to retreat	No duty to give absent request; Duran’s testimony negated need; omission not prejudicial
Heat‑of‑passion (voluntary manslaughter) instruction	No substantial evidence of provocation or obscured judgment	Court should have instructed on heat of passion as lesser included offense	No substantial evidence supported the instruction; omission harmless even under Chapman standard
Unanimity instruction on degree of murder	Instruction accurately required unanimity as to degree though not as to theory	Instruction ambiguous—permitted nonunanimity on degree	Instruction legally accurate (jury must be unanimous on degree); no reasonable likelihood of juror confusion; harmless
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Remarks were fair comment on evidence and law; contextualized by instructions	Misstated burden, disparaged defense, misstated evidence	Forfeited by no timely objection, but on merits no reversible misconduct; statements reasonable in context
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s omissions had tactical bases and produced no prejudice	Failure to request instructions/object to prosecutor denied effective assistance	Record does not show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claim fails
Sealed pretrial transcript review	Court properly reviewed sealed record under Penal Code §1054.7	Defense asked for independent appellate review	Appellate court independently reviewed sealed transcript and found no error

Key Cases Cited

People v. Wright, 39 Cal.3d 576 (Cal. 1985) (victim violent‑character evidence admissible under §1103 in self‑defense cases)
People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (Cal. 1996) (defendant’s knowledge of victim’s violent propensity relevant to state of mind)
People v. Fuiava, 53 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 2012) (prosecution may present evidence of defendant’s violent character in response)
People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2008) (when defendant testifies, prior felonies involving moral turpitude may be admissible)
People v. Castro, 38 Cal.3d 301 (Cal. 1985) (prior misconduct admissibility principles)
People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (trial court must instruct on lesser included offense when supported by substantial evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard for some constitutional errors)
People v. Centeno, 60 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2014) (prosecutor argument that risks misstating reasonable‑doubt standard can be reversible)
People v. Taylor, 48 Cal.4th 574 (Cal. 2010) (jury must be unanimous on degree of murder though not on theory)