People v. Liu CA2/2
B266352
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- Kevin Liu was charged with attempted murder, assault with a firearm, possession of a silencer, residential burglary, and criminal threats; jury convicted him of attempted murder (count 2), assault counts, silencer possession, and one criminal threats count, and found firearm enhancements true; total sentence 20 years.
- Facts: Liu learned his wife Nancy was dating coworker Martin Sandoval, made repeated threatening calls, bought and modified a handgun with a homemade silencer, and entered Nancy’s apartment on Sept. 6, 2013, where an altercation occurred and the gun discharged during a struggle.
- Prosecution theory: Liu intentionally pointed and used the gun to shoot Sandoval (attempted murder); evidence included threats, gun purchase/modification, presence in apartment, a discharged round, magazine/ammo on Liu, and Liu’s post-arrest admission.
- Defense theory: The shooting was accidental during a struggle after Liu found his stolen gun in the apartment; Liu also claimed lack of intent and presented witnesses corroborating an accidental discharge and prior consensual sexual practices between spouses (to explain zip ties).
- Trial rulings at issue: court refused an attempted voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) instruction; excluded psychiatric expert testimony about Liu’s mental state; excluded questioning about an alleged molestation accusation against Sandoval; allowed limited testimony that Nancy was undergoing cancer treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by refusing a heat-of-passion (attempted voluntary manslaughter) instruction | No error; evidence supports attempted murder, not lesser offense | Heat of passion from seeing wife with lover justified instruction | Affirmed — no substantial evidence of sudden quarrel/heat of passion; defendant knew of affair long before incident and defense asserted accidental discharge (no intent) |
| Whether trial court erred in excluding defense psychiatric expert testimony about Liu’s mental state | Exclusion proper because testimony was irrelevant to intent/heat-of-passion theory | Expert would show overwhelming rejection, impaired judgment, and heat of passion | Affirmed — expert irrelevant where no evidence of heat of passion and emotional impact is within jurors’ common experience |
| Whether exclusion of evidence that Sandoval was accused of molesting defendant’s daughter was erroneous | Exclusion proper; allegation irrelevant and speculative, more prejudicial than probative | Allegation relevant to Sandoval’s motive and mental state during confrontation | Affirmed — no relevance or credible evidence; Evidence Code §352 exclusion appropriate |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting that Nancy had cancer | Prosecutor’s questions were relevant to Nancy’s competence/stamina to testify; no misconduct | Question improperly solicited sympathy and prejudiced jury | Affirmed — claim forfeited for failure to object as misconduct; questions were relevant and curative instruction given; no prejudicial effect |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (trial courts must instruct on lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence)
- People v. Elmore, 59 Cal.4th 121 (voluntary manslaughter as lesser included when malice negated by heat of passion)
- People v. Thompkins, 195 Cal.App.3d 244 (attempted voluntary manslaughter is lesser included to attempted murder)
- People v. Czahara, 203 Cal.App.3d 1468 (expert testimony on ordinary emotional responses often unnecessary because jurors can assess common experiences)
- People v. McDowell, 54 Cal.4th 395 (standard of review and admissibility of expert testimony)