People v. Tua
D069731
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Defendants Roland Seau and David Lemoe Tua were tried jointly for a gang-related series of crimes in Oceanside: Seau convicted of first-degree murder (Bermas), attempted murder and assault (Lozano), and witness dissuasion; Tua convicted as an aider/abettor of second-degree murder (Bermas), attempted murder and assault (Lozano), and witness dissuasion.
- Jury found each offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang; both admitted priors in bifurcated proceedings. Seau received 102 years-to-life; Tua received 75 years-to-life.
- Core factual theory: defendants were DVB (Deep Valley Bloods) members; Tua introduced Lozano to DVB members as a rival gang member; Seau stabbed Lozano and later beat/knife-attacked Bermas; Rivera witnessed events and was later intimidated.
- Defendants moved to sever, to bifurcate gang enhancement, and later sought mistrials after police witnesses vouched for a key witness (Rivera); they also raised substantial-evidence challenges and instructional/sentencing errors.
- Court affirmed convictions on the merits but held, as a matter of first impression for this case, that a prior serious-felony (§ 667(a)) enhancement tied to determinate counts that are stayed or run concurrently with indeterminate terms must itself be stayed or run concurrently; remanded for resentencing on those enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of trials (severance) | Joint trial proper; evidence cross-admissible and supported concerted action | Joint trial caused gross unfairness by joining a weak case (Tua) to a strong one (Seau) and creating antagonistic defenses | Denial of severance upheld; no gross unfairness shown |
| Bifurcation/admission of gang evidence | Gang evidence inextricably intertwined with substantive offenses; admissible for motive, intent, and to prove enhancements | Admission was unduly prejudicial, used for propensity and should have been bifurcated | Admission and denial to bifurcate upheld; evidence sufficiently probative and not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Vouching by police witnesses for witness Rivera | Statements were proper investigatory testimony; any improper remarks were cured by strikes/admonitions | Police vouched for Rivera’s credibility; mistrial required | Denial of mistrial upheld; struck testimony and admonitions cured any error, and any error was not prejudicial |
| Prior serious-felony enhancement timing (§ 667(a)) | Enhancement can be added and run consecutive to indeterminate term even if determinate counts are stayed or concurrent | Enhancement cannot be imposed/executed where the determinate counts it attaches to are stayed or run concurrently under § 654 | Reversed as to five-year consecutive enhancements tied to determinate sentences that were stayed or concurrent; enhancement must follow mode of the determinate counts (stay or concurrency), remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bryant, 60 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2014) (joint-trial principles; preference for joinder and when severance is required)
- People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004) (admissibility of gang evidence and predicate acts for enhancements)
- People v. Tran, 51 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2011) (use of prior offenses as predicate acts and Evidence Code §352 guidance)
- People v. Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77 (Cal. 1984) (treatment of prior serious-felony enhancements under determinate scheme)
- People v. Sasser, 61 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2015) (prior-conviction enhancements go to offender’s status and application under determinate sentencing)
- People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2003) (aider-and-abettor liability for attempted murder requires shared intent to kill)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (aider-and-abettor liability and natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for harmless error review of non-constitutional prosecutorial misconduct)
- People v. Melton, 44 Cal.3d 713 (Cal. 1988) (impermissibility of law-enforcement vouching for witness credibility)
Disposition: convictions affirmed in all respects except reversal of consecutive five-year prior serious-felony enhancements imposed on determinate sentences that were stayed or concurrent; remanded for resentencing consistent with opinion.