People v. Leung CA4/3, G046955

Gary Leung was tried and convicted of multiple sex crimes for forcibly raping and assaulting his ex-girlfriend F.F.; sentenced to 19 years in prison.
Incident occurred May 30, 2010; victim reported forcible vaginal and anal penetration, chokeholds/strangulation, and threats; she immediately sought help and underwent sexual assault exam.
Nurse observed lip bruise, multiple red marks around the neck, abrasions on chest/back/shoulders, and petechiae; testified injuries were consistent with strangulation.
Two covert phone calls from the victim to Leung (and recorded) captured Leung apologizing and acknowledging tying her down, strangling her, forcing sex, and hurting her, though he refused to expressly say "rape."
Defense called appellant's mother Becky (via a noncertified Cantonese interpreter) who gave limited, arguably exculpatory testimony about hearing arguing but not witnessing the assault.
On appeal Leung challenged (1) use of an uncertified interpreter, (2) ineffective assistance for not objecting to the nurse’s strangulation opinion, and (3) jurors briefly having nonadmitted transcripts during deliberations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of uncertified interpreter for Becky	Court: interpreter error harmless; procedures must be followed but not every deviation requires reversal	Leung: uncertified interpreter mis-translated Becky's testimony and prejudiced him	No reversal; defense declined to question interpreter and no prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance for not objecting to nurse's opinion that injuries were consistent with strangulation	Prosecution: nurse's observations corroborated victim and appellant's admissions; objection would not change result	Leung: nurse lacked proper qualification to opine on strangulation and counsel should have objected	No reversal; even absent the opinion, other evidence (recorded admissions, visible neck injuries) made outcome not reasonably probable to change
Jury access to nonadmitted transcripts during deliberations	Court: brief access (3–5 minutes), transcripts used only as aides to the properly admitted recordings; error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Leung: jurors had transcripts not admitted into evidence, requiring reversal	No reversal; access was minimal and harmless given the recorded admissions and other evidence

People v. Carreon, 151 Cal.App.3d 559 (interpreters enable questioning of non‑English witnesses)
People v. Superior Court (Almaraz), 89 Cal.App.4th 1353 (procedural errors in interpreter use require demonstration of prejudice)
People v. McCullough, 56 Cal.4th 589 (issues forfeited on appeal where not pursued at trial)
People v. Lucas, 12 Cal.4th 415 (standard for ineffective assistance review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance prejudice standard)
People v. Williams, 44 Cal.3d 883 (burden to prove prejudice is demonstrable reality)
People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (harmless‑error analysis for juror access to nonadmitted materials)