People v. Sarwar CA3
C090687
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- On Aug. 21, 2018, Rohail Sarwar purchased a knife, drank beer, watched a massage parlor, entered twice, and during his second visit stabbed Junying (Lucy) ~20 times, killing her.
- Surveillance showed Sarwar leaving the scene with bloody hands; blood on a crosswalk button matched Lucy and Sarwar. He later described a hypothetical killing motivated by a woman’s refusal of sex.
- The day before, Sarwar sexually assaulted T.N. (an extramarital partner) by force; he had also previously assaulted another massage-parlor employee (S.X.).
- Phone evidence showed frequent pornography use and he admitted viewing porn shortly before the murder; prosecution argued this indicated sexual motive/arousal.
- Charged with first degree murder with special-circumstance allegations including lying in wait and murder during the commission of burglary (intent to commit sexual battery); tried with admission of the uncharged assault (Evid. Code §1108) and porn evidence. Jury convicted, found enhancements true; Sarwar sentenced to LWOP plus additional terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for lying-in-wait special circumstance | Evidence (waiting outside, recent knife purchase, watching parlor, timing of entry) supports concealment, watching, and surprise attack | No evidence he entered to kill; short interval between solicitation and stabbing cannot be "watchful waiting" | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports lying-in-wait under either waiting outside or waiting after a rejected advance; short periods can suffice (Moon/Sandoval framework) |
| Admissibility and proof standard for uncharged sexual assault (T.N.) under §1108 | Propensity evidence properly admitted to show intent; §1108 evidence may be proved by preponderance | Such evidence is in the "direct chain of proof" for burglary intent and thus should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; alternatively, it is unduly prejudicial | Affirmed — §1108 evidence is collateral, may be proved by preponderance (Reliford, Anderson); trial court properly instructed jury and did not err |
| Exclusion under §352 of T.N. assault testimony | — | The evidence was more prejudicial than probative and should have been excluded | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; assault was highly probative, similar to charged conduct, and not unfairly inflammatory |
| Admissibility of pornography evidence (relevance vs. propensity under §1101) | Porn evidence shows sexual arousal/motive and nexus to intent to commit sexual assault, not mere propensity | Evidence is character evidence and inadmissible under §1101 | Affirmed — admitted for motive/intent (§1101(b)); probative and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sandoval, 62 Cal.4th 394 (lying-in-wait is functionally equivalent to premeditation/deliberation)
- People v. Moon, 37 Cal.4th 1 (a brief but sufficient period of waiting can satisfy lying-in-wait)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (defendant may have dual intent: commit sexual assault then kill)
- People v. Tewksbury, 15 Cal.3d 953 (discussion of which facts lie within the direct chain of proof and burden of proof)
- People v. Reliford, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (§1108 evidence may be proved by a preponderance; instruction language proper)
- People v. Anderson, 208 Cal.App.4th 851 (propensity evidence is collateral, not part of direct chain of proof)
- People v. Nguyen, 184 Cal.App.4th 1096 (factors for §352 weighing of §1108 evidence)
- People v. Cordova, 62 Cal.4th 104 (comparative prejudicialness of uncharged acts relative to charged crime)
- People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (abuse of discretion standard for admission of other-acts evidence)