People v. Runderson CA5, F074056AM

Background:

Three defendants (Runderson, Hawkins, Jones) were convicted of attempted murder, second-degree robbery, and assaults after a March 27, 2015 robbery/shooting; various gang and firearm enhancements were found true.
The prosecution relied on gang-expert testimony (Detective Fry) to identify the Fly Boys as a criminal street gang and to tie predicate offenses/participants to that gang.
Jones was 16 at the time; post-conviction Proposition 57 required consideration of a juvenile transfer hearing for him.
On appeal the court reversed the gang enhancements because the gang expert’s predicate-offense testimony relied on inadmissible testimonial hearsay (Sanchez/Valencia principles); as a result certain firearm enhancements tied to the gang findings were struck for Runderson and Hawkins.
The court remanded for (1) possible retrial on gang enhancements, (2) resentencing with discretion to strike §12022.53(b) enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620, and (3) a juvenile transfer hearing for Jones under Proposition 57.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of gang-enhancement evidence	Evidence (expert, social media, photos, prior convictions) established Fly Boys and gang purpose	Evidence was insufficient to show an ongoing gang, pattern, or gang-purpose	Evidence was insufficient to sustain gang enhancements after excluding the expert’s hearsay; gang findings reversed
Admissibility / Confrontation of gang-expert predicate-offense testimony	Expert may rely on reports/other officers to prove predicates	Expert’s case-specific reliance on hearsay violated Evidence Code and Crawford right to confrontation	Admission of expert’s testimonial hearsay about predicate members was erroneous and not harmless; violated Sanchez/Valencia; reversal of gang findings required
Use of current charged offenses as predicates	The charged crimes themselves could supply the required predicate offenses	Reliance on charged offenses without proving predicate membership is improper	Jury instructions allowed reliance on charged crimes, but absent admissible proof that other predicate offenses were committed by Fly Boys, the pattern element failed
§12022.53(d) vicarious (aider/abettor) enhancements & notice	Information and verdicts provided fair notice and findings to impose vicarious §12022.53(d) on non-shooters	Applying (d) vicariously without specific pleading/finding violates notice/due process	Defendants forfeited contemporaneous objection; nevertheless because gang findings are reversed, related (d)/(e) enhancements were stricken as to Runderson and Hawkins
§12022.53(b) (personal use) and SB 620 relief	SB 620 is retroactive; court should have discretion to strike enhancements	People concede retroactivity but contest remand necessity for some defendants	Remand required so trial court can exercise discretion under §12022.53(h) (SB 620) at resentencing
Sufficiency of evidence for substantive convictions (Jones)	Identification, palm print, witness testimony tied Jones to shooting	Testimony inconsistent; gang evidence tainted verdict	Substantial evidence supports Jones’s convictions (photo ID, prior acquaintance, palm print); convictions affirmed
Pretrial identification (Jones)	Lineup was fair; identification reliable	Procedure unduly suggestive and violated due process	Lineup not unduly suggestive and identification reliable under totality of circumstances; claim forfeited and counsel not ineffective on this ground
Proposition 57 (Jones, juvenile)	N/A (AG conceded)	Jones: must have transfer hearing under Prop 57	Convictions conditionally reversed and remanded for juvenile transfer hearing; if transfer would not have occurred, treat as juvenile adjudication; if transfer would have occurred, reinstate and resentence

Key Cases Cited

People v. Valencia, 11 Cal.5th 818 (Cal. 2021) (gang-expert testimony about predicate offenses must be supported by independently admissible evidence)
People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert may not relate case-specific testimonial hearsay without confrontation or independent proof)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay absent unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for federal constitutional error)
People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.4th 1166 (Cal. 2002) (elements for imposing §12022.53(d) vicarious liability under gang theory)
People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (inference that crime committed with gang purpose when defendants act with known gang members)
People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (prior view on expert reliance on hearsay; later discussed in Sanchez)
People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (Prop 57 transfer-hearing procedures)