People v. Perez
22 Cal. App. 5th 201
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- "Max," a drug dealer, organized an ambush of rival dealers to rob and kill them; at least nine men participated, including defendants Pablo Sandoval, Edgar Ivan Chavez Navarro, and Jose Luis Perez.
- Participants were alleged Sinaloa-cartel members/associates; victims were members/associates of a different cartel cell. One victim survived and identified participants, leading to arrests; Perez confessed and another participant testified pursuant to a plea deal.
- Defendants were tried (Perez separately from Sandoval and Chavez) and convicted of multiple counts: murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and active gang participation.
- Jury found multiple special circumstances true: financial gain, multiple murder, lying in wait, robbery murder, kidnapping murder, and gang-related murder; firearm and gang enhancements were also found.
- Sentences: each defendant received nine consecutive life terms (mix of parole ineligibility and parole-eligible terms); appeal challenged several issues, prominently expert hearsay and special circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang expert testimony relying on case-specific out-of-court statements | People: no forfeiture; evidence properly admitted or defendant forfeited objection | Chavez: expert repeated case-specific hearsay in violation of Sanchez/Crawford; should have been excluded | Forfeiture: defense failed to object at trial; Sanchez-based objection forfeited because pre-Sanchez precedent put counsel on notice |
| Applicability of Sanchez principle to expert basis testimony | People: Sanchez narrowed law but earlier decisions already warned against expert conduit hearsay | Chavez: Sanchez prohibits expert from testifying to case-specific out-of-court statements because those are hearsay | Court: Sanchez applies, but earlier Williams/Dungo/Mercado/Foundation made objection reasonable; nonetheless defense forfeited by not objecting |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang special circumstance | People: evidence supported gang special circumstance | Defendants: evidence insufficient to prove gang special circumstance | Court: gang special circumstance reversed for insufficient evidence (unpublished portion) |
| Financial-gain special circumstance instruction omission | People: instruction not required or harmless | Defendants: trial court erred by not instructing on financial-gain special circumstance | Court: failure to instruct was error; financial-gain special circumstance reversed (unpublished portion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent prior cross-examination and unavailability)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2012) (plurality and multiple opinions addressing whether expert testimony repeating out-of-court statements raises confrontation issues)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert testimony recounting case-specific out-of-court statements is hearsay and subject to confrontation concerns)
- People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (Cal. 2012) (California Supreme Court discussion on experts relying on autopsy report and testimonial nature of underlying statements)
- People v. Stevens, 62 Cal.4th 325 (Cal. 2015) (failure to object to expert testimony or hearsay at trial generally forfeits appellate challenge)