People v. Chhuon and Pan

Summary

The California Supreme Court reviews the capital convictions of Run Peter Chhuon and Samreth Sam Pan arising from murders and attempted murders in Sacramento and Pomona. The court holds that joinder of the Sacramento and Pomona crimes under Penal Code section 790(b) was proper and did not violate ex post facto principles. It vacates Chhuon’s gang enhancement but otherwise affirms his judgment, while reversing Pan’s judgment in its entirety because counsel violated Pan’s right to determine the objective of his defense under McCoy v. Louisiana.

Holdings

1. Section 790, subdivision (b), governs the conduct and jurisdiction of trials and could be applied to a trial involving crimes committed before its effective date; its application did not violate ex post facto principles because it did not create a sufficient risk of increasing the punishment.
2. The Sacramento and Pomona murders were connected together in their commission under Penal Code sections 790, subdivision (b), and 954, so the trial court properly joined them.
3. Joinder did not violate Chhuon's or Pan's federal vicinage right or Pan's state constitutional vicinage right.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance of the Sacramento and Pomona charges, and the joint trial did not result in gross unfairness or a due process violation.
5. Defense counsel violated Pan's Sixth Amendment right to decide that the objective of his defense was to maintain his innocence by conceding that Pan was guilty, at least of second-degree murder, over Pan's express objection.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Bun's murder to prove identity, common scheme, motive, and intent concerning the Pomona crimes, and any asserted limitation or instructional error was harmless.
7. The court did not decide whether admission of Chhuon's statements violated the Sixth Amendment because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. The trial court properly admitted Huerta's former testimony because the prosecution exercised reasonable diligence to locate him and he was unavailable.
9. Substantial evidence supported Pan's conviction for attempted murder and the finding that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
10. Substantial evidence supported findings that Pan acted with intent to kill or, alternatively, as a major participant with reckless indifference to human life in the robbery or burglary resulting in the deaths of Nghiep and Hung.
11. The gang enhancements had to be vacated because the juries were not instructed under the amended law that the currently charged offenses could not be used to establish the required pattern of criminal gang activity, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
12. Giving CALJIC No. 17.41.1 was ill-advised but did not violate Chhuon's constitutional rights or require reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Sacramento and Pomona crimes were properly joined under Penal Code section 790, subdivision (b), including whether retroactive application violated ex post facto or vicinage principles.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance of the Sacramento and Pomona charges.
3. Whether Pan's defense counsel violated Pan's constitutional right to determine the objective of his defense by conceding guilt to second-degree murder over Pan's express objection.
4. Whether evidence concerning Bunlort Bun's murder was properly admitted to prove identity, common scheme, motive, or intent.
5. Whether Chhuon's statements to Detective Minter violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
6. Whether the prosecution exercised due diligence to establish that Rodolfo Huerta was unavailable and permit admission of his preliminary-hearing testimony.
7. Whether sufficient evidence supported Pan's attempted-murder conviction, the willful, deliberate, and premeditated finding, and the special-circumstance findings.
8. Whether Assembly Bill No. 333 required reversal of the gang enhancements.
9. Whether the admission of gang evidence and use of CALJIC No. 17.41.1 required reversal.

Disposition

reversed