People v. Glukhoy
292 Cal.Rptr.3d 623
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Twin brothers Roman and Ruslan Glukhoy committed a series of early‑morning auto burglaries, fled police in a high‑speed BMW, crashed, then stole a Ford F‑150 and led a second high‑speed pursuit.
- The second pursuit (Interstate 80 to Antelope Road) ended when the stolen truck ran a red light and collided with a Kia, killing both occupants; the brothers fled the scene.
- Evidence included eyewitness and deputy testimony about speeds and maneuvers, airbag module speed data, footprints/gate/garage evidence at the truck owner’s home, and post‑arrest statements by both brothers.
- Separate juries convicted Ruslan (including felony‑murder, burglary, evading) and Roman (including second‑degree murder, evading, conspiracy); Ruslan received two life‑without‑parole terms, Roman two consecutive 15‑to‑life terms.
- On appeal the court considered challenges to sufficiency of evidence, excluded expert testimony on adolescent brain development, alleged juror misconduct/continuance denial, counsel concessions, instructional error under Senate Bill 1437, sentencing (consecutive terms), Franklin remand, Dueñas remand, and clerical corrections to the abstract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — residential burglary (Ruslan) | Owner’s testimony (keys on counter, missing next morning), open gate/garage and footprints support entry and theft. | Defendants only stole from unlocked cars that night; owner may have left truck unlocked; no forced entry or forensic match. | Conviction supported — substantial evidence permits jury to infer burglary. |
| Sufficiency — aiding & abetting reckless evasion (Ruslan) | Ruslan’s conduct (hands out window, remaining in car, flight together, later driving stolen truck) shows intent to aid/encourage flight. | No affirmative act by Ruslan to aid Roman’s high‑speed evasion. | Conviction supported — substantial evidence of aiding and abetting. |
| Exclusion of expert on regressed brain development (Ruslan) | Expert evidence probative of risk awareness and implied‑malice mens rea. | Court: testimony largely within jurors’ common knowledge; limited relevance to defenses. | Any error harmless — Ruslan convicted under felony‑murder (no implied‑malice element). |
| Denial of continuance/new‑trial hearing re: juror misconduct (Ruslan) | Foreperson’s declaration alleged jurors used internet info and a juror hid prior knowledge; needed continuance to investigate and secure testimony. | Foreperson’s account was hearsay; defense lacked diligence; no strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct shown. | No abuse of discretion — hearsay insufficient to mandate further inquiry; defense failed to show good cause/diligence. |
| Counsel conceded conspiracy and evading counts (Roman) | Concession functionally relieved prosecution and required an on‑record waiver (citing McCoy/Farwell). | Concession consistent with defendant’s own admissions; concession does not equal stipulation or guilty plea; no contemporaneous objection. | No error — strategic concession not tantamount to plea and did not relieve prosecution’s burden; McCoy inapplicable. |
| Senate Bill 1437 / natural & probable consequences (Roman) | SB 1437 abolished NPC liability for murder; convictions under NPC must be vacated or reversed. | Even if NPC theory is invalid, jury was also presented with direct aiding‑and‑abetting implied‑malice theory and the evidence for that valid theory is overwhelming. | Alternative‑theory instructional error (retroactive) harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — evidence overwhelmingly supports direct aiding/abetting implied‑malice murder; convictions affirmed. |
| Instruction that aider/abettor can be guilty of lesser offense under NPC (Roman) | Trial court failed to instruct specifically that an aider/abettor under NPC can be guilty of a lesser offense than the perpetrator. | Jury was instructed (modified CALCRIM 400, CALCRIM 401/403) that aider/abettor may have different mental states and could be guilty of different crimes/degrees. | No instructional error — instructions read together adequately informed jury; no Strickland prejudice. |
| Consecutive terms for two murders (Roman) | Consecutive terms improper given youth, immaturity, and rule 4.425 considerations favoring concurrency. | Court considered youth and all rule 4.425 factors and relied on repeated, non‑aberrant dangerous conduct plus multiple victims. | No abuse of discretion — consecutive terms permissible; court weighed youth and aggravation. |
| Franklin remand for youth‑offender record (Roman) | Remand required so trial court can compile record for future youth parole review (Franklin). | Sentencing occurred after §3051 and after Franklin; defense presented youth‑related mitigation at sentencing. | No remand — unlike Franklin, defendant had opportunity and did present youth‑related evidence at sentencing. |
| Dueñas / ability‑to‑pay remand (Roman) | Remand required for ability‑to‑pay hearing on assessments/fees. | Dueñas has been rejected by many courts; no ability‑to‑pay hearing required for conviction/operation assessments. | Rejected — appellate court declines Dueñas rule; no remand. |
| Abstract of judgment clerical error | N/A | N/A | Court orders correction: court operations assessment set to $160 (not $260). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (Supreme Court noted an aider who knows conduct endangers life and acts with conscious disregard may be liable for murder post‑SB 1437)
- People v. Powell, 63 Cal.App.5th 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (recognizes and explains direct aiding & abetting implied‑malice murder and instruction pitfalls)
- People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2019) (harmlessness review for alternative‑theory instructional error — Chapman standard applies)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless error framework for omitted elements)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (U.S. 2018) (defendant’s right to insist counsel not admit guilt)
- People v. Farwell, 5 Cal.5th 295 (Cal. 2018) (stipulations admitting all elements are tantamount to guilty pleas)
- United States v. Skilling, 638 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2011) (alternative‑theory error can be harmless when evidence for valid theory is overwhelming)
- United States v. Black, 625 F.3d 386 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming convictions where evidence of valid theory was compelling)
- People v. Hayes, 21 Cal.4th 1211 (Cal. 1999) (trial court’s duty to investigate juror misconduct only triggered by credible, non‑hearsay indication of prejudice)