It’s a good bet that the Supreme Court is affirming in a death penalty appeal when the court’s opinion starts like this: “During a home invasion robbery, defendant Run Peter Chhoun and fellow gang members killed the entire Nguyen family except three-year-old Dennis. The child was wounded and left alone overnight with the bodies of his parents and siblings.” And, indeed, the court today does affirm the death sentence in People v. Chhoun for the five murders that occurred in 1995 in San Bernardino.
The court’s opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan is unanimous. It finds unpersuasive a variety of appellate arguments, including that other-crimes and gang-membership evidence was erroneously admitted and that the superior court improperly excluded an accomplice’s hearsay statements taking credit for some of the murders.
The court additionally concludes the superior court didn’t violate statutory procedures regarding support persons who were present for some prosecution witnesses, or, at least, if there was a violation, it wasn’t prejudicial. The court declines to resolve a Court of Appeal split about whether a statutorily required admonishment not to “prompt, sway, or influence the witness in any way” must be given to all support persons or only to those who are also witnesses.
The opinion does, however, disapprove a 1993 Sixth District decision that suggested the presence of a support person for a prosecution witness necessarily implicates the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights.
As it has in recent death penalty opinions (e.g., here), the court summarily dismisses a challenge to the rule that juries are not required to make unanimous findings beyond a reasonable doubt on aggravating factors, despite the court’s signaling in the pending McDaniel appeal that it will reconsider the rule. (See also here, here, and here.)
