People v. Perez
229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303
Cal.2018Background
- In March 1998 Joseph Andrew Perez, Jr. was accused of participating in a home invasion in Lafayette, CA during which Janet Daher was tied with a phone cord, strangled and stabbed; Perez was convicted of murder, residential robbery, residential burglary, and vehicle theft and later sentenced to death.
- Co-defendants Lee Snyder (tried first) and Maury O’Brien (cooperating witness) provided testimony implicating Perez; other witnesses corroborated sightings, disposal/abandonment of the victim’s SUV, and postcrime fencing of property.
- O’Brien (no immunity) and Jason Hart (immunity) testified to Perez’s active role; corroborating circumstantial evidence (eyewitness identifications, recovered property, motel check-in) satisfied corroboration requirements.
- The penalty phase included evidence of uncharged violent acts (including an alleged prior rape of a minor) and extensive mitigating social-history testimony about Perez’s abusive, unstable upbringing and juvenile placements.
- Perez raised multiple claims on automatic appeal: attorney conflict of interest, defendant’s absence from pretrial bench conferences, judge bias/disqualification, voir dire limitations and juror handling, prosecutorial misconduct and undisclosed/late evidence, admissibility and confrontation issues for autopsy-derived testimony, accomplice corroboration, evidentiary rulings, and constitutional challenges to California’s capital scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Perez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel conflict of interest | N/A (State defended conviction) | Egan had an ongoing adverse proceeding (ineffectiveness finding in another case) creating an actual conflict that impaired representation | No actual conflict shown on record; no adverse effect proved; claim denied |
| Defendant’s absence from pretrial bench conferences | Court argued absence harmless | Perez said being absent deprived him of opportunity to move to disqualify judge or counsel (Code Civ. Proc. §170.6) | Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no prejudice shown |
| Judge disqualification/bias (comments at Snyder trial) | N/A | Perez argued prior statements by Judge Spinetta about Snyder showed prejudice requiring disqualification | Comments were based on live-observed evidence and did not show disqualifying bias; motion properly denied |
| Voir dire procedures and sequestering panels | N/A | Limits on individual voir dire, group voir dire, time limits, and judge-led rehabilitation biased jury and favored pro-death jurors | Court acted within discretion; no constitutional violation shown |
| Removal of seated juror (Juror No. 7) | N/A | Dismissal during guilt phase was improper because juror could still serve for guilt phase | Trial court's dismissal under §1089 supported by demonstrable reality standard — juror said he could never impose death; removal upheld |
| Accomplice testimony and corroboration (§1111) | N/A | O’Brien/Hart testimony insufficiently corroborated and unreliable due to deals/immunity | Corroboration (eyewitnesses, recovered property, timeline, postcrime conduct) adequate; immunity did not make testimony per se inadmissible; claim denied |
| Autopsy-derived testimony and Confrontation Clause (Crawford) | N/A | Expert Peterson’s reliance on deceased pathologist’s autopsy report produced testimonial hearsay; admission violated confrontation rights | Statements were hearsay; any Crawford error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other evidence; conviction stands |
| Late disclosure of aggravation evidence / Brady | N/A | Prosecution delayed turning over police reports re: prior uncharged rape and filed late notice of aggravation; Brady violation claimed | Notice and disclosures were timely enough under §190.3; no Brady violation shown; any lateness harmless |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (various remarks) | N/A | Multiple instances (vouching, references to appeals, victim-impact during guilt phase) deprived Perez of fair trial | Most claims forfeited for failure to object or found nonprejudicial; no reversible misconduct established |
| Challenges to California death-penalty scheme & proportionality | N/A | Statutory and constitutional arguments (jury findings, burden, narrowing, intercase proportionality, international law) | Court rejected claims; followed existing precedent; sentence proportionate and lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt standard for federal constitutional error)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim impact evidence admissible at sentencing; Eighth Amendment does not categorically bar it)
- People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (2009) (conflict-of-interest claims evaluated as ineffective assistance; require showing of actual conflict that adversely affected performance)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (framework for evaluating when expert testimony relies on hearsay and confrontation concerns)
- People v. Romero and Self, 62 Cal.4th 1 (2015) (accomplice corroboration explained; corroboration need not establish every fact but must connect defendant to the crime)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) ("demonstrable reality" standard for factual review of juror discharge under §1089)
- People v. Famalaro, 52 Cal.4th 1 (2011) (trial court’s discretion on group voir dire and sequestering prospective jurors)