People v. Perez
E060438
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Three defendants (Sandoval, Chavez, Perez) participated in a coordinated ambush ordered by a drug dealer "Max" that resulted in two murders and one survivor; victims were tied with zip ties, robbed, driven to Victorville, and shot. DNA, cell‑phone and store surveillance linked defendants to the scene.
- Sabas Iniguez ("Junior") and other accomplices testified pursuant to plea deals; Perez made inculpatory statements to police admitted to his jury.
- Defendants were convicted of multiple murders, attempted murder, kidnappings, robbery‑related offenses, and active gang participation; multiple special‑circumstance allegations (financial gain, multiple murder, lying in wait, robbery‑murder, kidnapping‑murder, gang‑related murder) were found true.
- Sentences: each defendant received multiple consecutive life terms (including life without parole findings) plus enhancements.
- On appeal, defendants raised sufficiency challenges to degrees and special circumstances, evidentiary objections (including gang‑expert case‑specific hearsay), instructional errors (aider/conspirator premeditation, conspiracy to attempt), prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing procedural claims.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang expert’s case‑specific hearsay | Expert testimony was admissible and defendants forfeited hearsay/Crawford objections by not objecting at trial | Expert relayed case‑specific out‑of‑court statements violating Sanchez/Crawford | Forfeiture: counsel’s failure to object forfeited the claim; no relief on this basis (Sanchez narrowed rule but prior law made objections viable) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang special circumstance | Evidence showed defendants and accomplices were Sinaloa cartel members/associates and crimes were gang‑related | Insufficient proof that murders were "to further" cartel activities or that the cell met criminal‑street‑gang elements | Reversed as to gang special circumstance—insufficient evidence that murders furthered cartel or that the cell qualified as a gang; other gang convictions/enhancements upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence for financial‑gain special circumstance | Killing eliminated debt and thus was an essential prerequisite to financial gain; applicable to aiders | Insufficient evidence that death was consideration or essential prerequisite for financial gain | Reversed: trial court also failed to instruct on required CALCRIM clarification; financial‑gain special circumstance vacated |
| Permissibility of aiding/conspiracy instructions for first‑degree (premeditation) liability | Jury instructions allowed first‑degree only if defendant personally premeditated; conspiracy/aiding doctrines were properly given | Natural‑and‑probable‑consequences could not be used to convict aider of first‑degree (Chiu) | No reversible error: trial instructions required personal premeditation for first‑degree murder so Chiu retroactivity satisfied by what jury was told |
| Conspiracy as basis for attempted murder liability in instructions/argument | Instruction used conspiracy theory to impute liability for attempted murder when conspiracy aimed at murder, robbery, kidnapping | Conspiracy to commit attempted murder legally impossible; error to instruct that way | No prejudicial error: jury necessarily found intent to kill; instruction did not require conspiracy to attempt murder and verdicts sustained |
| Admission that witness Iniguez was assaulted in jail | Statements about assault relevant to witness credibility and fear of testifying; admissible | Prejudicial and speculative; implicated defendants as attackers; should have been excluded | Forfeiture of more specific objections; admission proper on credibility grounds and not unduly prejudicial; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (expert testimony recounting case‑specific out‑of‑court statements is hearsay and inadmissible for its truth)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (aider and abettor cannot be convicted of first‑degree murder under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences unless personally premeditated)
- People v. Dowl, 57 Cal.4th 1079 (2013) (failure to object to an expert’s qualifications or admissibility forfeits appellate challenge to those matters)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (U.S. Supreme Court fractured treatment of whether expert reliance on out‑of‑court reports implicates Confrontation Clause)
- People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (2012) (expert testimony recounting another’s autopsy observations raises confrontation/hearsay concerns)
- People v. Wilkins, 56 Cal.4th 333 (2013) (escape‑rule/continuing‑felony analysis for felony‑murder: felony continues until perpetrators reach temporary safety)
- People v. Burney, 47 Cal.4th 203 (2009) (kidnapping continues while victim is detained; murder during detention occurs in perpetration of kidnapping)