People v. Perez, E060438M

Background

Three defendants (Perez, Chavez, Sandoval) participated in a planned ambush of three rival drug-distribution associates that resulted in two deaths and one surviving, wounded victim; crimes were coordinated at a South Gate house and victims were taken to Victorville and shot.
Prosecution relied on testimony from Sabas Iniguez (plea-bargained witness), physical/cellphone/DNA evidence, and Officer Jeffrey Moran as a gang expert tying participants to the Sinaloa cartel.
Defendants were convicted of multiple counts (murders, attempted murder, kidnappings, active gang participation) and found guilty of multiple special circumstances and gang enhancements; each received consecutive life terms.
On appeal defendants raised numerous challenges: sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder and special circumstances, expert hearsay (post-Sanchez), admission of Iniguez’s jail-assault testimony, instructional errors (aiding and abetting, conspiracy, failure to instruct on financial-gain and escape rule, duress), prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing procedure.
The Court affirmed most convictions but reversed the financial-gain and gang special-circumstance findings and remanded as to those; it also held certain appellate procedural points (forfeiture of objections) and addressed multiple instructional and evidentiary questions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of gang expert’s case-specific hearsay (Sanchez issue)	People: defense failed to object at trial; evidence may still be challenged on sufficiency	Chavez: Sanchez makes such testimony inadmissible and trial counsel could not have anticipated it	Forfeited — counsel’s failure to object below forfeited the claim; Sanchez narrows scope but pre-Sanchez caselaw made objections viable
Sufficiency of evidence for gang special-circumstance (Pen. Code §190.2(a)(22))	People: participants and victims were affiliated with Sinaloa; crimes furthered gang activities	Defendants: insufficient organizational/associational proof that murders furthered the cartel as a whole	Reversed — evidence insufficient to show murders were carried out to further the cartel (special circumstance)
Failure to instruct on financial-gain special-circumstance	People: jury verdict supports financial-gain finding	Defendants: court failed to give CALCRIM No.720 and required clarification distinguishing robbery gain from killing-for-gain	Reversed — trial court had sua sponte duty to instruct; omission not harmless as jury might have conflated robbery gain with killing-as-prerequisite
Admission of testimony that Iniguez was assaulted in jail	People: testimony relevant to witness credibility/fear; defendants didn’t preserve tailored objections	Defendants: prejudicial and speculative, suggested defendants’ involvement	Forfeited and, on the merits, admissible — relevant to credibility; not unduly prejudicial; defendants did not preserve a better objection
Aiding-and-abetting instruction for first-degree (Chiu effect)	People: jury properly instructed and verdicts consistent with personal premeditation findings	Perez: natural-and-probable-consequences theory improperly allowed first-degree liability for aider	No reversible error — jury instructions required personal premeditation for first-degree murder, consistent with Chiu; conspiracy instruction not given in a way that produced error
Conspiracy as theory for attempted murder	People: conspiracy instruction tied to murder, overt acts, and liability for co-conspirator acts	Perez: legal impossibility to conspire to commit attempted murder	No reversible error — jury necessarily found killing intent; instruction did not yield conviction on an impossible conspiracy-to-attempt theory
Prosecutor’s closing: theories of attempted murder, Griffin comment on silence	People: argument was fair comment on evidence and corroboration; no Griffin violation	Defendants: prosecutor misstated law (felony-murder/lying-in-wait/conspiracy cannot support attempted murder) and impermissibly commented on defendant silence	Waived where not objected; on the merits no prejudice — jury found attempted murder on valid intent theory; Griffin comments were reasonable comment on uncontradicted evidence and co-defendant witness unavailability
Failure to state reasons for upper term on gang participation	People: issue forfeited; sentencing record contained aggravating factors supporting upper term	Defendants: trial court failed to state reasons on the record as required	Forfeited — defendants failed to object at sentencing; record shows aggravating factors that likely would have been stated if urged

Key Cases Cited

People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert testimony recounting case‑specific out‑of‑court statements constitutes hearsay and is limited)
People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (aider/abettor cannot be convicted of first‑degree murder on natural and probable consequences theory; personal premeditation required)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause bars testimonial hearsay unless declarant unavailable and prior cross‑examination occurred)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2012) (plurality/concurrences addressing whether expert testimony that relies on out‑of‑court statements admits the statements for their truth under Confrontation Clause)
People v. Dowl, 57 Cal.4th 1079 (Cal. 2013) (failure to object to expert qualifications forfeits that appellate challenge; sufficiency challenge remains)
People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (Cal. 2012) (discussion of expert reliance on out‑of‑court reports and confrontation concerns)
People v. Wilkins, 56 Cal.4th 333 (Cal. 2013) (escape rule and continuity of felony for felony‑murder analysis)