46 Cal.App.5th 1055
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Caminero Wang was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder (his mother-in-law and father-in-law) with findings that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death and a multiple-murder special circumstance; aggregate sentence: life without parole plus 50 years to life.
- Prosecution evidence: neighbors heard many shots; a .45 FNH handgun, casings, and bullets from the scene were forensically matched to that gun; gunshot residue on defendant’s hands and defendant’s DNA on the gun’s trigger; brutal wounds to both victims consistent with close-range shooting.
- Relevant background: longstanding pattern of domestic control and prior 2013 domestic-violence incident against wife (admitted at trial); in‑laws visiting from China; tensions over their stay and return flight dates.
- Defendant’s account: testified he armed himself after a confrontation, there was a struggle in which the father-in-law allegedly fired accidentally, then defendant shot in panic and later fired additional shots; he claimed some shots were to kill himself and later to find his children; police encountered him as he was returning upstairs.
- Trial rulings and disputed issues included omission of a requested heat-of-passion instruction for one count, admissibility of prior domestic‑violence evidence and certain hearsay, prosecutor questioning about defendant’s post‑arrest silence, closing-argument analogies about premeditation, and sentencing discretion over firearm enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Wang’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omission of CALJIC No. 8.42 (heat of passion) as to Diao (count 2) | Omission was harmless because jury necessarily found premeditation and deliberation under other instructions | Omission was reversible (structural or federal constitutional error) | Court found omission erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no structural error because other instructions required rejecting heat-of-passion theory |
| Denial of heat-of-passion and imperfect self-defense instructions as to Zhang (count 1) | — | There was evidence to support voluntary manslaughter theories (provocation or imperfect self-defense) | Court affirmed denial: no objective sufficient provocation and no evidence of reasonable/imminent fear for imperfect self-defense |
| Admission of 2013 domestic‑violence incident under Evid. Code §§1109 and 1101(b) | Evidence showed pattern, motive, and lack of accident; admissible under domestic-violence propensity exception | Prior act was inadmissible propensity evidence or unduly prejudicial | Court upheld admission: incident fit §1109, probative on motive/absence of accident, and §352 balancing not abused |
| Admission of Li’s testimony recounting threat Diao told Zhang (double hearsay) | Admitted to show victims’/family state of mind and context | Double hearsay and not admissible under §1250 or as nonhearsay of Li | Court found testimony inadmissible on those theories but harmless given other evidence of threats already before jury |
| Admission of Li’s testimony that she believed defendant would get a gun during an argument | Testimony relevant to family’s fear and fits prosecution theory of escalating domestic control | Testimony speculative and lacked foundation | Court sustained admissibility: Li knew where guns were and inference was reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutor cross‑examined defendant about invocation of Miranda rights | Questions exposed inconsistencies between trial story and what was told to police; legitimate impeachment | Violated Doyle (use of postarrest silence to impeach) | Court found no Doyle violation: prosecutor did not invite adverse inference from silence but rebutted appellant’s suggestion he had been fully forthcoming |
| Prosecutor’s yellow‑light analogy re: premeditation/deliberation in closing | Analogy illustrated that deliberation can be brief and was tied to jury instruction | Misstated law and lowered burden on premeditation/deliberation element | Court held analogy proper and consistent with instruction and precedent; no prosecutorial misconduct |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to call middle child as witness | — | Child testimony would have corroborated appellant and supported defense account | Court rejected claim: record shows plausible tactical reasons (risk of damaging testimony) and no affirmative evidence counsel had no strategy |
| Remand for resentencing to consider imposing lesser firearm enhancement | People argued court expressly declined to strike §12022.53(d) and had considered discretion | Morrison suggests courts might impose lesser uncharged enhancement when striking greater one; remand needed to allow modern discretion | Court denied remand: lesser enhancements here were charged and found true; trial court expressly refused to strike the greater enhancement and record shows it considered its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (legal duty to instruct on lesser included offenses when supported by substantial evidence)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (standard for giving lesser‑included instructions)
- People v. Nelson, 1 Cal.5th 513 (heat‑of‑passion legal framework)
- People v. Moye, 47 Cal.4th 537 (objective and subjective components of heat of passion)
- People v. Aranda, 55 Cal.4th 342 (harmless‑error principles and structural error discussion)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (instructional error and harmless‑error analysis)
- United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (examples of structural error depriving basic protections)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (limits on using postarrest silence)
- People v. Collins, 49 Cal.4th 175 (application of Doyle in California context)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (context for admitting propensity evidence in sexual/domestic‑violence cases)
- People v. Lancaster, 41 Cal.4th 50 (harmlessness when jury necessarily decides against omitted theory)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (approving traffic‑light analogy for quick but deliberate decision)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (sentencing court presumed to know and apply governing law)
- People v. Morrison, 34 Cal.App.5th 217 (discussion of imposing lesser §12022.53 enhancements when striking greater one)