IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

S087569

Tulare County Superior Court

40863

April 29, 2019

Justice Chin authored the opinion of the court, in which Chief 

Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, 

Kruger, and Groban concurred.
1

PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

S087569

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

After two juries were unable to reach a verdict, a third jury 

convicted defendant, Juan Sanchez, of the first degree murders 

of Ermanda Reyes and Lorena Martinez under the special 

circumstances of multiple murder and, as to Lorena Martinez, 

rape by instrument. It also found true that defendant 

personally used a firearm during the commission of both 

murders. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of 

death. The court denied the automatic motion to modify the 

verdict and imposed a judgment of death. This appeal is 

automatic. We affirm the judgment.

I. THE FACTS

A. Guilt Phase

1. Overview

The evidence supported a jury finding that early in the 

morning of August 4, 1997, defendant entered the Porterville

home of Ermanda Reyes (Ermanda) and her 17-year-old 

daughter, Lorena Martinez (Lorena), sexually assaulted Lorena, 

then shot and killed both mother and daughter. (All future 

dates in this factual recitation are to the year 1997 unless 

otherwise indicated.)

Defendant presented evidence trying to raise a reasonable 

doubt that he committed the crimes.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

2

2. Prosecution Evidence

In early August, Ermanda lived on North Wellington 

Street in Porterville with her daughter, Lorena, her 13-year-old 

son, Victor M. (Victor), and her five-year-old son, Oscar H.

(Oscar). Rosa Chandi, the sister of Ermanda’s former husband, 

Efrain M. (Lorena’s and Victor’s father), lived with several 

family members nearby on North Wellington. Victor spent the 

night of Sunday to Monday, August 3-4, at his father’s house, 

but Ermanda, Lorena, and Oscar were home that night.

Chandi woke early on the morning of Monday, August 4. 

A short time later, she observed Oscar approach her house 

alone. Oscar told her that his mother and Lorena were 

“sleeping,” were “bleeding” and “cut,” and he could not wake 

them. Chandi went with Oscar to the Reyes home. The front 

door was open, and Chandi entered with Oscar. Inside, she saw 

Ermanda’s and Lorena’s bodies in their respective bedrooms. 

She returned to her home and dialed 911. Officer Larry 

Rodriguez was the first to respond, arriving around 5:48 a.m. 

He entered the house and observed the bodies. Other 

responders soon arrived.

Lorena’s body was in her bedroom lying partially on the 

bed and partially on the floor. She was wearing a bloody T-shirt 

that had been pulled up over her stomach area and a bra that 

had been pulled up enough to expose one breast. The bra had a 

one-inch cut that a knife might have made. Bloodstained 

underpants were around Lorena’s knees. A separate piece torn 

from the underpants was on the floor nearby. A black-handled, 

silver-bladed steak knife was found on the bed under Lorena’s 

body.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

3

Blood was found in various places in the house, including 

a trail leading from outside Lorena’s bedroom into the master 

bedroom, where Ermanda’s body was located. Ermanda’s body 

was lying on the floor next to the bed. A telephone was on a 

nightstand near the bed, but the handset to the telephone was 

on the floor. The physical evidence indicated that Lorena had 

been shot in her bedroom, and Ermanda had been shot outside 

Lorena’s bedroom, then managed to return to her bedroom,

where she died.

Lorena died of wounds to the chest from two gunshots. 

Fresh bruising and scratching in her genital and anal areas

indicated she had been sexually assaulted by an instrument of 

some kind. Ermanda bled to death from a gunshot wound 

through the chest. She could have engaged in physical activity 

briefly before she died.

Investigators found three bullets, one in Lorena’s

mattress, one in her clothes, and one in the family room that had 

passed through her bedroom wall. They also found two 

unexpended cartridges in her bedroom. All came from the same 

gun, “[m]ore than likely” a nine-millimeter Luger 

semiautomatic handgun.

Detective Ty Lewis was dispatched to the crime scene at 

5:45 a.m. that morning. When he arrived, he entered the Reyes 

home briefly, then went to the Chandi residence, where he spoke 

individually with Chandi and others. Chandi told him about a 

“boyfriend” she had seen recently at the Reyes house who might 

have committed the crime. She did not know his name, but she

described him and said he drove a yellow truck. Detective Lewis 

spoke briefly with Oscar, who seemed “very calm.” Oscar told 

him that “he had been sleeping in his mother’s bedroom on the 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

4

floor and that he awoke to a man’s loud voice, and there was a 

man standing in the bedroom.” At that point, Oscar became 

nonresponsive, and Detective Lewis ended the interview.

Sergeant Chris Dempsie spoke with Oscar alone around

7:00 a.m. that morning at the Chandi house. During the 

interview, Oscar was emotional. “Periodically, he would stop 

crying and answer questions, but he was crying when he first 

came to me, and I believe he was crying towards the end of the 

interview also.” Oscar told Sergeant Dempsie that he had been 

sleeping in his mother’s bed and was “awakened by 

firecrackers.” He “saw his mother coming towards the telephone 

that was next to his bed, and he also saw a man in the room with 

her.” His mother was bleeding. She grabbed the telephone, then 

fell backwards. Oscar said that the man had a “wisp on his 

chin”; when he said that, Oscar brushed his chin with his hand. 

Oscar also said he was the man who “had brought him ice 

cream.” Oscar said he tried to wake his mother but could not. 

He also saw blood on the walls and saw his sister and heard her 

screaming. She was bleeding. Then he ran outside to his aunt’s 

house.

After speaking with Oscar, Sergeant Dempsie spoke with 

Victor, who had come to the Chandi house when he heard what 

had happened. He asked if Victor knew of someone who had 

brought Oscar ice cream. Victor testified that until that point, 

he was unaware defendant might have been involved in the 

crime. But he remembered that the previous Saturday, August 

2, Oscar was eating ice cream at home. Defendant was present. 

Victor testified that Oscar told him at the time that “Juan” had 

gotten him the ice cream. Later in his testimony, Victor clarified 

that he had remembered the name “Juan” from seeing 

defendant at the Reyes house that weekend. Oscar did not use 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

5

the name at the time. Thus, Victor told the police that “Juan” 

had given Oscar the ice cream. Victor was also able to tell the 

police where defendant lived because Victor’s family had once 

lived near him.

Later that morning, Sergeant Eric Kroutil obtained a 

photograph of defendant and showed it to Oscar. In the 

photograph, defendant had a mustache but no goatee. Oscar 

said the photograph was of “Juan,” and he was the man he had 

seen in the house earlier that morning. At the time, Sergeant 

Kroutil was aware that Victor, not Oscar, had first used the 

name “Juan.”

Defendant was arrested in his home in Porterville around 

11:00 to 11:20 a.m. the same morning. After defendant’s arrest, 

Sergeant Dempsie showed Oscar a photographic lineup 

containing a photograph of defendant taken that day. In this 

photograph, defendant had both a mustache and a goatee. 

Oscar identified defendant’s photograph as that of Juan, the 

man who had given him ice cream and was in the house the 

morning of the murders. The interview was videotaped, and the 

videotape was played to the jury. During the interview, in 

addition to identifying defendant’s photograph, Oscar added 

new details about what had occurred in the house that morning. 

He said that he hit Juan in the stomach; that Juan had a knife 

and a gun in his hand; that two men were in the room, one 

named Juan and one named Michael; and that Juan left the 

house in his yellow truck.

The same morning, Detective Steve Ward obtained a 

warrant to search defendant’s home. He seized a steak knife 

with a black handle that he observed on a kitchen counter. He 

looked for, but could not find, a similar knife. Mary Lucio, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

6

defendant’s wife, testified that she had bought that knife and a 

similar but smaller knife at a “99-cent store” the previous 

February. She could not remember what happened to the 

second knife. She said she told police it probably got lost or was 

thrown away in the trash. After his arrest, defendant wrote a 

letter to Mary in Spanish telling her “to remember the knife that 

you had lost cutting cantaloupe.” After receiving the letter, she 

told police that she lost the knife cutting cantaloupe. But at 

trial, she testified that she did not know what had happened to 

it.

A forensic metallurgist testified that he compared the 

knife found in Lorena’s bedroom with the knife seized from 

defendant’s house. He said that certain “design characteristics 

of the items suggest [a] common manufacturer,” but he could not 

be certain.

Sergeant Kroutil interviewed defendant in English for 

about 30 to 40 minutes the afternoon of his arrest. Defendant 

“appeared concerned for his friends, cooperative . . . like he was 

wanting to help.” After defendant was given and waived his 

Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), he 

said he had known Ermanda but had not seen her for about two 

years until the previous Saturday, August 2. On that Saturday, 

he went to her home and drank beer with her for about three 

hours. He also bought ice cream for Oscar. The evening of 

Sunday, August 3, he spent some time at the home of Hector 

Hernandez, then returned to his home, where he spent the 

night. Lucio woke him that morning around 8:00 a.m., and he 

stayed in bed until 8:45 a.m.

When Sergeant Kroutil showed defendant a picture of the

knife found in his home, he strongly denied it was his, saying, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

7

“I’ve never seen a knife that looks like this.” Then, when he 

realized the picture had been taken in his own home, he said, 

“[Y]eah, . . . my wife bought that at the 99-cent store.” When 

asked whether she had bought another knife at the same time, 

he said, as Sergeant Kroutil testified, “[N]o, absolutely not, that 

was the only knife she bought.”

Later the same day, Sergeant Kroutil spoke with 

defendant again briefly, mainly to obtain his consent to an 

interview the next day in Visalia. Other than standard booking 

procedures, no one else interviewed defendant that day. The 

next day, August 5, Sergeant Kroutil transported defendant to 

Visalia, where Visalia Police Detective Steve Shear interviewed 

him. The interview was tape recorded.

Detective Shear’s interview with defendant began in 

English, then defendant requested and obtained a Spanish 

interpreter. Detective Shear testified, however, that he could 

understand defendant’s English and defendant appeared to 

understand his English. Detective Shear told defendant about 

his Miranda rights, including that he had a right to an attorney. 

Defendant did not request an attorney. Defendant again denied 

committing the crime. When Detective Shear showed him a 

photograph of the knife found in his home, he said that his wife 

had purchased it at a 99-cent store. When Detective Shear 

showed him a photograph of the smaller knife found at the crime 

scene, defendant said he was not sure it was his. Later he said 

he remembered that the smaller “knife had been inadvertently 

left in the back yard when he and his wife had been cutting 

watermelon . . . about a week earlier.” Defendant also reiterated 

that he had bought Oscar ice cream the previous Saturday.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

8

After the interview with Detective Shear on August 5, 

defendant told Sergeant Kroutil that a “smaller version” of the 

knife found in his house had been “lost in his back yard and [he] 

was wanting somebody to go check or something like that.”

Defendant spoke with police for a total of less than one 

hour on August 4 and less than two hours on August 5.

The next day, August 6, Detective Ward spoke with 

defendant for about 30 minutes. After that interview, Sergeant 

Ernie Garay, who speaks Spanish, interviewed defendant. 

Defendant had just eaten lunch. The interview between Garay 

and defendant was mostly in Spanish but some of it was in 

English, which defendant understood. An interview that was 

not recorded began at 12:30 p.m. and continued until they took 

a break at 1:55 p.m. Defendant was given and waived his 

Miranda rights. At first, defendant again denied committing 

the crime. But about 20 to 30 minutes into the interview, he 

said, “I’m screwed,” and, as Sergeant Garay described it,

“admitted going over to the house and shooting both of the 

victims.” After telling Sergeant Garay in the unrecorded 

interview what he had done, defendant agreed to give a 

videotaped statement, which began at 2:20 p.m., in which he 

reiterated his confession. The videotape was played to the jury.

In the videotaped statement, after again receiving and 

waiving his Miranda rights, defendant said the following: He 

entered the Reyes house through an unlocked door. (One 

witness testified that the Reyes house was often unlocked.) He 

had a gun, but no knife. He was looking for Ermanda, who owed 

him money and had insulted him. When he saw Ermanda, he 

“just shot” two or three times. He also shot the other woman 

about two times. He did not know if he hit them. He did not 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

9

know why he shot, saying, “I was blacked out.” But he also said 

he saw a knife in Lorena’s hand and thought “she was going to 

kill me.” He did not see anyone else in the house and did not 

follow anyone into the other room. He denied sexually 

assaulting Lorena, stating, “I didn’t touch her.” He was inside

for only about five minutes. He then left the house and drove 

away in his truck. While driving, he threw the gun into a field. 

He thought the gun was a “.22” but added, “I don’t know guns.” 

(The police looked for the gun where defendant said he had 

thrown it but could not find it.)

By the time of the third trial, more than two years after 

the crime, Oscar testified that he remembered little about the 

events of August 4. He did remember that defendant had 

brought him ice cream, although he could not remember when. 

He also remembered talking to the police on August 4, when 

everything was fresh in his mind; he testified that he told them 

the truth. At one point on redirect examination, Oscar did 

identify defendant as a man he saw the day his mother was 

killed. But then he promptly reiterated that he did not 

remember. On recross-examination by defense counsel, he also 

identified a photograph of a different person as someone else he 

saw at his mother’s house the night she died.

Hector Hernandez testified that defendant came to his 

house twice during the evening of Sunday, August 3, using his 

yellow truck. Hernandez asked defendant to give him a ride to 

work the next morning, as he often did. Defendant agreed to 

give him a ride, and Hernandez gave him ten dollars to pay for 

it. The next morning, August 4, Hernandez woke at 5:00 a.m., 

as he had to be at work by 6:30 a.m. Defendant was supposed 

to come to his home around 6:00 a.m. Hernandez called his 

brother for a ride just after 5:30 a.m. because he feared 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

10

defendant would not come. His brother then gave him a ride to 

work. Hernandez testified that defendant did not come to his 

house that morning, or at least that he did not see him.

Margarita Ruiz testified that soon after the murders, 

Hernandez told her that defendant had been at his house 

around 5:00 a.m. on August 4. Hernandez denied telling her 

this. Hernandez’s brother testified that Hernandez called him 

to give him a ride to work around 5:00 to 5:10 a.m. that morning. 

Hernandez had not called him the night before.

Hernandez later testified that he had had a sexual 

relationship with defendant for about five years, and he loved 

him. He said, however, that he would not lie for defendant and 

insisted that defendant did not come to his house early on 

August 4.

Lucio testified that on August 4, she went to bed for the 

last time around 4:30 a.m. Defendant was in her bed at the 

time. She awoke around 6:30 to 7:00 a.m. Defendant was in her

bed at that time also. However, Lucio told police that defendant 

“might have been acting like he was asleep” when she went to 

bed at 4:30 a.m., that she was sleeping “very soundly” that 

morning, that it was “absolutely” possible for defendant to leave 

her bed and return without disturbing her, and that he had done 

so “hundreds of times” or “a thousand times” in the past. At 

trial, Lucio denied that defendant could have left without her 

knowing it. After the killings, Lucio told a friend that the 

morning of August 4, defendant was withdrawn and acting 

strange. He wanted to put his truck in the backyard.

Several witnesses, including Chandi, testified that they 

saw defendant or his distinctive yellow truck, or both, at or 

around the Reyes residence on multiple occasions the weekend 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

11

before the crimes. One witness testified that she observed 

defendant drive the truck by the residence “real slow” more than 

once. Around 1:30 a.m. on the morning of August 4, when she 

went outside to smoke, the same witness saw defendant talking 

with Ermanda in her garage. Ermanda appeared agitated. 

Another witness testified she saw defendant there three times

within a short period of time. Once she saw defendant and 

Ermanda speaking loudly in front of her house. Defendant was 

gesturing with his hands. Another witness testified that she 

saw defendant with Ermanda the Saturday before the killings. 

Defendant left in his truck appearing upset.

Michael Stephens, Lucio’s nephew, who was at 

defendant’s home early on the morning of August 4, testified 

that he might have heard what he believed was defendant’s 

noisy truck early that morning, but he was not sure. Previously, 

Stephens had told police unequivocally that he did hear the 

truck start up early that morning.

Lucio testified that defendant once told her that he wanted 

to bring a firearm home, although she did not see any guns at

home. Alonzo Perez, Hernandez’s cousin, testified that he drove 

to a dump with defendant in defendant’s yellow truck the day 

before the murders. Defendant told him that “he had a gun at 

home.” Camarino Reyes, Ermanda’s brother, testified that 

before Ermanda’s funeral, Raul Madrid, Ermanda’s brother-inlaw, told him that the week before Ermanda was killed, Madrid

gave defendant a ride home. On his way back, Madrid realized 

that defendant had left a nine-millimeter gun in his pickup. 

Madrid said he returned the gun the next day. After Madrid 

said this, he said no more and reacted as if “he had blown it.” At 

trial, Madrid denied the conversation. Catherine Barrera 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

12

testified that defendant stayed with her for a while during the 

summer of 1997. He told her he had a gun.

The distance by car from the Reyes house to Hernandez’s 

home was 1.4 miles, and it took about two minutes 40 seconds 

to drive it. The distance from defendant’s home to the Reyes 

house was 1.5 miles, and it took about three minutes ten seconds 

to drive it. The distance from defendant’s house to Hernandez’s 

home was 1.6 miles, and it took about two minutes 35 seconds 

to drive it.

The prosecution also presented evidence that was 

exculpatory. Defendant’s DNA was not found anywhere in the 

Reyes house. His fingerprints were found on some beer cans but 

not elsewhere in the house. A bloody shoeprint was found in the 

house. The boots defendant wore when he was arrested did not 

match the shoeprint, nor did police find any matching shoes in 

defendant’s house. None of defendant’s clothes were

bloodstained. Neither semen nor sperm were found in or around 

Lorena’s body.

When police arrived at the crime scene, the window of 

Victor’s bedroom was open. The window screen was removed 

and leaning against the wall outside. But the window ledge on 

the inside was dusty and showed no signs of a recent 

disturbance. The knife found at the crime scene had one partial 

and two full fingerprints that were unidentified but were not 

defendant’s or Lucio’s. The sliding portion of the open window 

of Victor’s bedroom contained unidentified fingerprints that 

were not defendant’s. Because of similarities between the prints 

on the window and the prints on the knife, there was a “strong 

possibility” they came from the same person. But because of the 

nature and condition of the prints, the fingerprint examiner 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

13

could not say for sure. The examiner could not say how long the 

prints had been there.

3. Defense Evidence

Defendant presented evidence relevant to Oscar’s 

credibility at trial and the credibility of Oscar’s statements and 

identifications the day of the crimes. This evidence included

events that might have influenced him, primarily conversations

inside the Chandi house the morning of the crimes; Oscar’s 

inconsistent statements, including some of his prior testimony;

testimony from Wanda Newton, a professional counselor who 

provided therapy to Oscar; and testimony from Dr. Susan 

Streeter, a psychologist and expert on the reliability of child 

witnesses. He also presented evidence of his actions the day 

before the crimes, evidence inconsistent with some of the 

prosecution evidence, and evidence from persons who knew 

Ermanda and Lorena well that they never saw defendant at 

Ermanda’s home.

Defendant testified. He denied committing the crimes. He 

said he visited Ermanda the Saturday before the crimes and 

again the next day. He had never been to the house previously, 

although he had known Ermanda from a time in the past when 

she lived near him. On that Saturday, he brought a six-pack of 

beer and, for Oscar, ice cream. On Sunday evening, August 3, 

he went to Hernandez’s home for a while, then returned home, 

where he eventually went to bed. He awoke the next morning, 

August 4, around 9:30-9:45 a.m. He was surprised to be arrested 

later that morning.

Defendant said he had not agreed to give Hernandez a ride 

to work the morning of August 4. He also denied telling Alonzo 

Perez and Catherine Barrera that he had a gun.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

14

Defendant testified about his interviews with police on 

August 4, 5, and 6, leading to what he said was a false 

confession. He denied that Sergeant Kroutil gave him his 

Miranda rights. He said he asked Sergeant Kroutil, Detective 

Shear, and Sergeant Garay for an attorney on multiple 

occasions, although never when the interview was being 

recorded. He said the officers ignored his requests, except that 

Detective Shear told him he did not need an attorney.

Defendant testified that Detective Ward threatened to put 

him in a cell with a “crazy man . . . so he can kill you.” The 

detective also said, “I better tell him, and if not, then he, himself, 

would inject me so that he could see me die, suffering, dying, 

little by little for what I had done.” Sergeant Garay threatened 

to take his family away “if I didn’t tell him.” Defendant

confessed “after they had me all scared and pressured. I told 

them so they could leave me at peace.” He also confessed 

“because of Ward’s threat, because Garay had already said to 

me that he was going to take my family away, because I was 

tired and so that I could satisfy them. I said it so they would 

leave me at peace, alone. This was three days with the chains. 

I was three days with the chains and all I wanted was to be left 

alone or at peace.” (Both Sergeant Garay and Detective Ward 

denied making these, or any, threats.)

Defendant also presented the testimony of Dr. Richard 

Ofshe, a social psychologist, regarding, as defendant states it on 

appeal, “how the misuse of police interrogation tactics, including 

threats and coercion, can result in false confessions.”1

 

1 On rebuttal, the prosecution presented the expert 

testimony of Joseph Buckley regarding police interrogations and 

confessions.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

15

B. Penalty Phase

The prosecution presented evidence of defendant’s crimes 

of violence against his wife, Mary Lucio, and his stepdaughter, 

Tammy Lucio. It also presented the testimony of Rosa Chandi, 

Michelle Chandi (Lorena’s cousin), and Victor about the impact 

the murders had on them.

Defendant presented a substantial case in mitigation. 

Thirteen friends and relatives who knew him well, including his

wife, son and stepchildren, testified about his difficult 

upbringing, his good qualities, and their continuing love for him.

Dr. Jose La Calle, a clinical psychologist, testified that his 

testing showed that defendant had an intelligence quotient (IQ) 

of 84, “the lowest end of the dull normal intelligent level.” 

Defendant’s “Spanish vocabulary was probably around third or 

fourth elementary grade level.” He attended elementary school 

sporadically for about three years. Someone with defendant’s 

IQ could “do some problem solving in mechanics,” but 

defendant’s abstract problem solving was “very poor.” He had 

poor short-term attention span. He also had a “short fuse,” 

meaning a “low tolerance threshold to a stress.” But “short fuse” 

does not mean “violent reaction” or “blowing your top.”

Mike Harvey, a Tulare County deputy sheriff, testified 

that defendant had had no “write-ups or disciplinary actions” 

while in jail.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

16

II. DISCUSSION

A. Issues Regarding Guilt

1. Contentions Regarding Oscar’s Testimony and 

Statements the Day of the Crimes

Defendant makes several arguments regarding Oscar’s 

testimony and the evidence of his statements and photographic 

identifications the day of the crimes.

To place the arguments into context, it is important to 

keep in mind the following: By the time Oscar testified, more 

than two years after the events, he had little memory of what 

happened the morning of August 4, 1997. His trial testimony, 

as distinguished from his statements on August 4, included little

that implicated defendant in the crimes. In his argument to the 

jury, the prosecutor did not rely on Oscar’s testimony at all, but 

only on the evidence of his statement to police that the man he 

saw in the bedroom that morning was the one who had brought 

him ice cream, and his two photographic identifications of 

defendant as that man. What the jury had to decide was the 

credibility of that statement and those identifications.

a. Oscar’s Competence To Testify

Defendant contends the court erred in finding Oscar 

competent to testify.

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, every person, 

irrespective of age, is qualified to be a witness and no person is 

disqualified to testify to any matter.” (Evid. Code, § 700, italics 

added.) “A person is disqualified to be a witness if he or she is: 

[¶] (1) Incapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the 

matter so as to be understood, either directly or through 

interpretation by one who can understand him; or [¶] (2) 

Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

17

truth.” (Evid. Code, § 701, subd. (a).) The grounds stated in 

Evidence Code section 701, subdivision (a)(1) and (2), are the 

“only” grounds for disqualifying a witness from testifying. 

(People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 572.)

Defendant does not contend that Oscar was incapable of 

expressing himself so as to be understood. A quick review of the 

transcript of his testimony shows he was quite capable of 

expressing himself. But defendant contends the court should 

have declared him disqualified because he was incapable of 

understanding his duty to tell the truth.

“Capacity to communicate, or to understand the duty of 

truthful testimony, is a preliminary fact to be determined 

exclusively by the court, the burden of proof is on the party who 

objects to the proffered witness, and a trial court’s 

determination will be upheld in the absence of a clear abuse of 

discretion.” (People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 573.) 

“[T]he credibility of a witness is an issue for the jury, and not a 

relevant factor in determining competence to testify.” (People v. 

Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1264, fn. 16; see People v. Avila

(2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 589-590.)

The trial court acted well within its discretion in 

permitting Oscar to testify. Defendant moved to disqualify 

Oscar before the first trial. The court presided over a lengthy 

evidentiary hearing, during which Oscar, as well as others,

including Dr. Streeter and Wanda Newton, testified. After the 

hearing, the court found him competent to testify in a written 

ruling: “The court observed the minor testify on the issue and 

has considered his demeanor and responses as well as the other 

evidence presented. The court finds the minor witness is 

capable of expressing himself concerning the matter so as to be 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

18

understood and the minor understands his duty to tell the truth. 

As to defense contentions of inconsistencies and concerns 

relating to the minor’s therapy, these are matters for the trier of 

fact to consider on the issue of credibility and are not a basis to 

disqualify a witness from testifying. (See People v. Dennis

(1998) 17 Cal.4th 468.)”

At the original hearing, Oscar testified that he was seven 

years old and in the first grade. At first, he said he did not know 

the difference between the truth and a lie. But when questioned

carefully, he made clear he did understand the difference. The 

prosecutor held what Oscar knew was a pen. When the 

prosecutor said, “If I told you this is a car,” Oscar responded, 

“That would be a lie.” When asked whether he would lie or tell 

the truth while sitting in the witness chair, he responded, “The 

truth.” He said he understood it was important for him to tell 

the truth, and he would always tell the truth while sitting in the 

chair. Defense counsel’s cross-examination and the redirect 

examination reinforced that Oscar was able to understand his 

duty to tell the truth.

Similarly, at the trial under review, Oscar made clear he 

understood his duty to tell the truth. At the beginning of his 

testimony, he said he would tell the truth. The prosecutor 

asked, “If I said I was wearing a blue shirt, would that be the 

truth or would that be a lie?” Oscar responded, “A lie.” The 

prosecutor then asked, “If I said I was wearing a tie with 

elephants on it, would that be the truth or would that be a lie?” 

Oscar responded, “The truth.” The record before us does not 

reveal the appearance of the prosecutor’s shirt or tie, but 

presumably Oscar responded appropriately. No one suggested 

otherwise. After this testimony, the court again found Oscar 

competent to testify.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

19

Oscar’s testimony supports the trial court’s finding. 

(People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 525 [voir dire 

testimony of a child four years old at the time of the crimes and 

eight years old when testifying established that she “understood 

the difference between truth and falsehood and appreciated that 

she had to tell the truth”].) Defendant argues that Oscar had 

made many inconsistent statements between the time of the 

crimes and his testimony; that his memory had been corrupted 

by, among other things, the fact he had undergone therapy; and 

that he was incredible. Some of these arguments are factually 

supported; all are irrelevant to Oscar’s competence to testify but 

instead were matters for the jury to consider.

Oscar was seven or eight years old when he testified at the 

third trial. Children much younger have been found competent 

to testify. (People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 351 [two child

witnesses, one six and a half years old, and the other not quite 

five years old at the time of trial]; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 

Cal.4th 408, 443 [five years old at the time of trial]; People v. 

Giron-Chamul (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 932, 941 [five years two 

months old at the time of trial]; see People v. Roberto V. (2001) 

93 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1368-1369 [collecting cases in which fourand five-year-old children were found competent to testify].)

Regarding a five-year-old witness, we explained that 

“[i]nconsistencies in testimony and a failure to remember 

aspects of the subject of the testimony, however, do not 

disqualify a witness. [Citation.] They present questions of 

credibility for resolution by the trier of fact.” (People v. Mincey, 

supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 444.) Similarly, we can easily adapt to 

this case our discussion in a case involving an eight-year-old 

witness: “The facts that [Oscar] received therapy to help [him] 

cope with [his] mother’s [and, here, sister’s] death, that [he]
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

20

discussed the events with the prosecutor and others, and that 

[he] had gaps in [his] memories of the [morning] the crimes 

occurred, do not disqualify [him] as a witness.” (People v. 

Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 526.)

In the Giron-Chamul case, the defendant argued the fiveyear-old child was disqualified because her testimony was 

“ ‘fantastical.’ ” (People v. Giron-Chamul, supra, 245 

Cal.App.4th at p. 958.) The court disagreed for reasons that 

apply here. It explained that the witness was “a child, and 

children have imaginations. ‘[T]he fact that a very young 

witness makes inconsistent or exaggerated statements does not 

indicate an inability to perceive, recollect, and communicate or 

an inability to understand the duty to tell the truth,’ even if 

some parts of the child’s testimony may be ‘inherently 

incredible.’ ” (Id. at p. 960.)

In short, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

finding Oscar competent to testify and letting the jury 

determine his credibility.

b. Asserted Error in Admitting Oscar’s 

“Unreliable” Statements and Testimony

In a similar vein, defendant argues that Oscar’s testimony 

and earlier statements were too unreliable to be admitted. But, 

as explained in part II.A.1.a, ante, these are arguments for the 

jury to consider, not grounds to exclude the evidence. Defendant 

also argues Oscar did not have “personal knowledge of the 

matter” about which he testified. (Evid. Code, § 702, subd. (a).) 

The comments of the Law Revision Commission to Evidence 

Code section 701 explain, “Because a witness, qualified under 

Section 701, must have personal knowledge of the facts to which 

he testifies (Section 702), he must, of course, have the capacity 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

21

to perceive and to recollect those facts. But the court may 

exclude the testimony of a witness for lack of personal

knowledge only if no jury could reasonably find that he has such 

knowledge. [Citation.] Thus, the Evidence Code has made a 

person’s capacity to perceive and to recollect a condition for the 

admission of his testimony concerning a particular matter 

instead of a condition for his competency to be a witness. And, 

under the Evidence Code, if there is evidence that the witness 

has those capacities, the determination whether he in fact

perceived and does recollect is left to the trier of fact.” (Cal. Law 

Revision Com. com., 29B pt. 2 West’s Ann. Evid. Code (1995 ed.) 

foll. § 701, p. 284; see People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 

525-526 [quoting the same comment], People v. Lopez, supra, 5

Cal.5th at p. 351.)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting 

the evidence. (People v. Lopez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 352.) Oscar 

was present at the events about which he testified. At trial, he 

could not remember much, but the jury was entitled to consider 

and evaluate what he did remember. (People v. Dennis, supra, 

17 Cal.4th at pp. 491-492 [trial court properly admitted the 

testimony of a child who “did not remember much about the 

traumatic attack on her mother”].) Oscar’s testimony “showed 

that [he] could perceive and recollect, and [he] understood [he] 

should not invent or lie about anything [he] said in court. [He] 

was an eyewitness to the events. Consequently, once the trial 

court properly determined [he] was competent to testify under 

Evidence Code section 701, it had no basis for excluding [his]

testimony for lack of personal knowledge.” (Id. at p. 526.)

In fact, Oscar’s trial testimony was, by and large, quite 

credible. He said he remembered little about the events of 

August 4, 1997. The trial court specifically credited this part of 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

22

his testimony. Oscar’s lack of current memory was, indeed, 

consistent with defendant’s own evidence suggesting that later 

events, such as therapy, might have corrupted his memory. 

From the prosecutor’s perspective, probably his most important 

testimony was that he told the police the truth the morning of 

the crimes. The jury could readily find this testimony credible. 

The jury could also find it credible that, although Oscar could 

not remember what he told police, he did remember that, 

whatever it was, it was the truth. Oscar also testified that 

defendant had brought him ice cream, although he could not 

remember when. This testimony was highly credible. That a 

person brought him ice cream is something a five-year-old child 

would likely remember. Moreover, defendant himself said that 

he brought Oscar ice cream in his first interview with Sergeant 

Kroutil and again at trial.

The trial court properly permitted the jury to consider 

Oscar’s testimony and the evidence of his statements the 

morning of the crimes and to judge for itself their reliability. 

Contrary to defendant’s argument, doing so did not violate his 

due process rights. (People v. Lopez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 353-

354.)

c. Admissibility of Oscar’s Photographic 

Identifications

Defendant contends the procedures by which Oscar made 

the two photographic identifications was impermissibly 

suggestive and, to the extent Oscar identified defendant at trial, 

that identification was tainted by the earlier improper 

identifications.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

23

i. Factual Background

Sergeants Dempsie and Kroutil testified about the 

identifications at an evidentiary hearing held before the first 

trial. Sergeant Dempsie spoke with Oscar at Rosa Chandi’s

home early the morning of August 4, 1997. Oscar told him the 

man he saw in the bedroom had brought him ice cream and had 

a “wisp on his chin.” When Oscar said that he gestured by 

rubbing his chin. Oscar gave no name. After speaking with 

Oscar, Sergeant Dempsie spoke with Victor and obtained 

information regarding defendant that he provided to Sergeant 

Kroutil.

Using information that Sergeant Dempsie provided, 

Sergeant Kroutil obtained a past booking photograph of 

defendant. In the photograph, defendant had a mustache but 

no goatee. Around 9:00 a.m. that morning, he showed the 

photograph to Oscar while they were alone in a bedroom in the 

Chandi residence. Sergeant Kroutil told Oscar something along 

the lines of “I wanted to show him a photograph and see if he 

knew the person in it.” Oscar said it was “Juan,” the man he 

had seen “that morning while his mom was bleeding.” From 

information that Sergeant Dempsie had provided, Sergeant 

Kroutil understood that Oscar had originally not provided a 

name, but in the interim he had gotten the name from Victor. 

Oscar “was very strong in his belief that it was Juan.”

Later that morning, Sergeant Dempsie showed Oscar a 

photographic lineup containing six photographs, one of which 

was of defendant taken that morning. In that photograph, 

defendant had both a mustache and a goatee, as did the others 

in the lineup. Oscar identified defendant’s photograph.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

24

Originally, the court ruled evidence of the singlephotograph showup admissible but not evidence of the 

photographic lineup. At the trial under review, however, the 

court ruled the evidence of the photographic lineup was also 

admissible. Accordingly, the jury heard evidence of both of 

Oscar’s photographic identifications.2

ii. Analysis

Defendant contends the identification procedure was

impermissibly suggestive in violation of his due process rights.

“A due process violation occurs only if the identification 

procedure is ‘so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very 

substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ ” (People 

v. Cook (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1334, 1355, quoting Simmons v. 

United States (1968) 390 U.S. 377, 384.) “In order to determine 

whether the admission of identification evidence violates a 

defendant’s right to due process of law, we consider (1) whether 

the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and 

unnecessary, and, if so, (2) whether the identification itself was 

nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances, 

taking into account such factors as the opportunity of the 

witness to view the suspect at the time of the offense, the 

witness’s degree of attention at the time of the offense, the 

accuracy of his or her prior description of the suspect, the level 

of certainty demonstrated at the time of the identification, and 

the lapse of time between the offense and the identification.” 

 

2 Two days after the photographic identifications, Oscar 

also identified defendant from a live lineup. But the trial court 

found that lineup impermissibly suggestive because defendant 

was the only person wearing striped jail pants. Accordingly, 

evidence of that lineup was not admitted at any of the trials.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

25

(People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 989; see People v. 

Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 556-558.) “Against these factors is 

to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive 

identification itself.” (Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) 432 U.S. 98, 

114.)

Because there is no dispute regarding the historical facts, 

we independently review the trial court’s ruling that the

identification was admissible. (People v. Kennedy (2005) 36 

Cal.4th 595, 609.)

Defendant first contends that Sergeant Kroutil’s showing 

Oscar a single photograph was both unnecessary and 

impermissibly suggestive. We have said that such showups are 

not necessarily unfair. (People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 

136.) “Rather, all the circumstances must be considered.” 

(Ibid.) Nevertheless, a single-photograph showup is inherently 

suggestive, at least to some extent. (Manson v. Brathwaite, 

supra, 432 U.S. at p. 109.) It is unclear whether the showup was 

necessary in this case. At the time Oscar viewed the single 

photograph, defendant was a suspect but was still at large. To 

take the time to prepare a photographic spread may have 

increased the risk that he might flee. On the other hand, Oscar 

had already identified the killer as the man who brought him ice 

cream, and Victor had already identified defendant as the man 

who brought Oscar ice cream. That may have been reason 

enough to arrest (or at least monitor) defendant without 

conducting a photo identification beforehand. The police also 

put together a photo array mere hours after the showup — and 

perhaps could have done so much faster given that they arrested 

(and processed) Sanchez in the meantime. Plus, unlike the 

witness in Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293, Oscar was not 

himself on the brink of death. The issue is therefore close.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

26

But we need not decide whether the procedure was

necessary. Although the reliability of Oscar’s showup

identification itself presents a difficult issue, we ultimately find 

that it was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. The 

inherent suggestiveness of the procedure was outweighed by 

other factors confirming the reliability of the identification. (See 

Manson v. Brathwaite, supra, 432 U.S. at p. 116.) Sergeant 

Kroutil merely showed Oscar a photograph and asked if he knew 

the person. That did not explicitly suggest the answer. 

Moreover, although Oscar had indicated (correctly) that the man 

who gave him ice cream had a goatee, the photograph was from 

a time in the past when defendant did not have a goatee. Thus, 

defendant’s appearance in the photograph was different than 

his appearance the day of the shooting and different than 

Oscar’s description of the man he observed. If anything, the 

difference in facial hair suggested the photograph was not of the 

man Oscar had observed. So although Oscar — unlike the

witness in Braithwaite — was not an adult “trained police 

officer” viewing a showup “at his leisure,” and “[a]lthough 

identifications arising from single-photograph displays may be 

viewed in general with suspicion,” we still see relatively “little 

pressure on [Oscar] to acquiesce in the suggestion that such a 

display entails.” (Id. at pp. 115-116) 

Against this possible corrupting effect, we weigh the 

factors indicating the identification was reliable. For a start, the 

showup occurred mere hours after the murders. And although 

Oscar probably had only a fleeting opportunity to observe the 

man in the dimly lit bedroom at the time of the offense, he had 

ample opportunity to observe and get to know defendant the 

weekend before the Monday morning murders. It likely would 

not take Oscar long in the bedroom that morning to recognize
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

27

the man he saw as the man he had seen much of over the 

weekend and who had brought him ice cream. His description 

of defendant, including the goatee, was accurate. Moreover, 

Oscar identified defendant even though the photograph he was 

shown did not contain that goatee, thus suggesting the 

identification was based on his observation rather than the 

photograph matching his description.

Other circumstances support a finding of reliability. Part 

of the identification was independently corroborated by none 

other than defendant himself. Oscar identified defendant in two 

respects: (1) as the man who brought him ice cream, and (2) as 

the man he saw in the bedroom. The first of these was later 

shown to be completely reliable. Defendant said the same thing 

in his initial interview with police and later at trial. Moreover, 

the physical evidence corroborated part of what Oscar told the 

police that morning. He said that his mother grabbed the 

telephone, then fell. Ermanda’s body was lying on the floor, and 

the telephone handset was on the floor. The only disputed point

was Oscar’s statement that the man who brought him ice cream 

was also the man in the bedroom. But Oscar said that before he 

was shown the photograph. Thus, the showup could not have 

influenced that statement.

In short, although the suggestive nature of the 

identification does raise concerns, we find Oscar’s identification 

of the single photograph as the man he saw in the bedroom 

sufficiently reliable to be admissible. Defendant did not carry 

his “burden of demonstrating the existence of an unreliable 

identification procedure.” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 

Cal.4th at p. 989.) We note, however, that because singlephotograph showups are inherently suggestive, they should be 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

28

used very cautiously, and only when truly necessary. It is 

generally better to use a multiple-photograph lineup.

Defendant also challenges the photographic lineup. We 

have viewed it, and it was fair. Defendant’s photograph in the 

lineup was different than the one Oscar had previously seen, so 

Oscar did not simply reidentify the same photograph. All of the 

photographs were of persons with both a goatee and a mustache. 

“The question is whether anything caused defendant to ‘stand 

out’ from the others in a way that would suggest the witness 

should select him.” (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 

367.) Nothing did in this lineup. Defendant argues that the 

conversation between Sergeant Dempsie and Oscar before the 

viewing impermissibly suggested Oscar’s identification. “Our 

review of the transcripts reveals no such suggestiveness in 

[Dempsie’s] inquiries.” (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 

699.) Sergeant Dempsie asked Oscar questions about what he 

had seen and then asked him whether the man he had seen was 

among the pictures. He did not say that the man was in the 

lineup and did not suggest which, if any, of the six photographs 

Oscar should select.

Finally, defendant contends Oscar’s trial testimony was 

tainted by the earlier identification procedures. At trial, Oscar 

identified defendant in only two respects. First, he said 

defendant had brought him ice cream, testimony that, as noted, 

was entirely reliable, having been corroborated by defendant 

himself. Second, although Oscar generally testified that he did 

not remember the events that morning, on redirect examination 

he did briefly identify defendant as the man he saw in the house. 

But then Oscar reiterated that he did not remember. To the 

extent this testimony can be considered a trial identification of 

defendant as the perpetrator, the jury could readily consider it, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

29

by itself, to be unreliable. Similarly, the jury could readily 

consider as equally unreliable Oscar’s additional testimony on 

recross-examination that the photograph of a different person

was also of someone he had seen at the house when his mother 

died.

As was apparent to the jury, Oscar’s memory was largely 

corrupted by the time he testified at the third trial. But the 

identification procedures the morning of the crimes did not 

cause this corruption. Instead, other factors that defendant

himself identified at trial, including the passage of time, and 

external events such as Oscar’s therapy, caused the corruption. 

The jury was entitled to consider Oscar’s trial testimony for 

what it was worth.

d. Admission of Oscar’s Hearsay Statements Made 

on the Day of the Murders

Over defendant’s hearsay objections, the court admitted 

evidence of Oscar’s statements the morning of the shooting to 

Sergeant Dempsie (the man he saw in the bedroom had a “wisp

on his chin” and had brought him ice cream) and Sergeant 

Kroutil (identifying a photograph of defendant as that man). In 

a written ruling before the first trial, reiterated at the trial 

under review, the court admitted the statement to Sergeant 

Dempsie as a spontaneous statement under Evidence Code 

section 1240. The court found that, “given the totality of the 

circumstances, Oscar provided the information about the man 

with a ‘wisp’ who gave him ice cream while Oscar was under the 

stress of excitement and while his reflective powers were still in 

abeyance.”

The court admitted the statement to Sergeant Kroutil on 

three grounds: (1) as a spontaneous statement, (2) as a prior 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

30

consistent statement under Evidence Code sections 791 and 

1236, and (3) as a past recollection recorded under Evidence 

Code section 1237. It noted that “the interview between Oscar 

and Kroutil occurred within three hours of probably the most 

stressful, shocking event I think any of us could perceive, 

anyone could experience, that is, the death of a five year old’s 

mother and sister.”

Defendant contends the court erred in admitting both 

statements. We disagree. We review the court’s evidentiary 

rulings for abuse of discretion. (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 

Cal.4th 401, 462.) The court acted within its discretion in 

finding the statement to Sergeant Dempsie admissible as a 

spontaneous statement and in finding the statement to 

Sergeant Kroutil admissible as a past recollection recorded. 

Because one ground for admissibility is sufficient, we need not 

consider whether the statement to Sergeant Kroutil was also

admissible on the other grounds the court cited. (See Cowan, at 

p. 465.)

“Evidence Code section 1240 provides that ‘[e]vidence of a 

statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the 

statement’ ‘[p]urports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, 

condition, or event perceived by the declarant’ and ‘[w]as made 

spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of 

excitement caused by such perception.’ ‘[T]he basis for the 

circumstantial trustworthiness of spontaneous utterances is 

that in the stress of nervous excitement, the reflexive faculties 

may be stilled and the utterance may become the instinctive and 

uninhibited expression of the speaker’s actual impressions and 

belief.’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘To be admissible, “(1) there must be some 

occurrence startling enough to produce . . . nervous excitement 

and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

31

utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive 

and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be 

supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in 

abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the 

circumstances of the occurrence preceding it.” ’ ” (People v. 

Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 751-752.)

The first and third of these requirements are clearly met. 

What occurred, the deaths of his mother and sister, was 

certainly startling, and Oscar’s statements related to the 

circumstances of that occurrence. Defendant contends the 

second requirement is not met because Oscar had time to 

contrive and misrepresent. “Because the second admissibility 

requirement, i.e., that the statement was made before there was 

‘ “time to contrive and misrepresent,” ’ ‘relates to the peculiar 

facts of the individual case more than the first or third does 

[citations], the discretion of the trial court is at its broadest 

when it determines whether this requirement is met.’ ” (People 

v. Lynch, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 752.)

“A number of factors may inform the court’s inquiry as to 

whether the statement in question was made while the 

declarant was still under the stress and excitement of the 

startling event and before there was ‘time to contrive and 

misrepresent.’ [Citation.] Such factors include the passage of 

time between the startling event and the statement, whether 

the declarant blurted out the statement or made it in response 

to questioning, the declarant’s emotional state and physical 

condition at the time of making the statement, and whether the 

content of the statement suggested an opportunity for reflection 

and fabrication. [Citations.] This court has observed, however, 

that these factors ‘may be important, but solely as an indicator 

of the mental state of the declarant.’ [Citation.] For this reason, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

32

no one factor or combination of factors is dispositive.” (People v. 

Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 64.)

We see no abuse of discretion. When the court made its 

final ruling, it had presided over a detailed evidentiary ruling

and two previous trials. It knew the facts thoroughly. The most 

important factor here was that, as the court noted, the 

underlying event was truly startling, especially for a five year

old. The court could reasonably conclude it would take a long 

time for the child to regain his reflective powers after what he 

saw and experienced. Sergeant Dempsie spoke with Oscar 

within about an hour and a half of that event. He testified that

during the interview, Oscar was emotional and was crying part 

of the time. Given the circumstances, Sergeant Dempsie’s

testimony was credible. The trial court could readily conclude 

that Oscar had not by then had time to contrive or misrepresent, 

or to reflect or fabricate.

As defendant notes, Detective Lewis testified that when 

he spoke with Oscar earlier that morning, Oscar seemed calm. 

However, Oscar also soon became nonresponsive in that 

interview. He could well have been in shock, then later reacted 

emotionally. The trial court could reasonably find that Oscar 

was under the stress of the earlier events on both occasions. 

Defendant also argues that Oscar might have heard discussion 

from others in the Chandi house suggesting defendant was the 

perpetrator. But there was no evidence that anyone suggested 

that the man who brought Oscar ice cream was the perpetrator. 

Oscar said that himself. In any event, whether or not there 

might have been discussion in the Chandi house, the court acted 

within its discretion when it found Oscar was still under the 

stress of the earlier events when he made the statement.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

33

The court also acted within its discretion when it found 

the statement to Sergeant Kroutil admissible as a past 

recollection recorded. “Evidence Code section 1237 permits 

evidence of a witness’s past statement ‘if the statement would 

have been admissible if made by him while testifying, the 

statement concerns a matter as to which the witness has 

insufficient present recollection to enable him to testify fully and 

accurately, and the statement is contained in a writing which: 

[¶] (1) [w]as made at a time when the fact recorded in the writing

actually occurred or was fresh in the witness’[s] memory; [¶] (2) 

[w]as made . . . (ii) by some other person for the purpose of 

recording the witness’[s] statement at the time it was made; [¶] 

(3) [i]s offered after the witness testifies that the statement he 

made was a true statement of such fact; and [¶] (4) [i]s offered 

after the writing is authenticated as an accurate record of the 

statement.’ (Evid. Code, § 1237, subd. (a).)” (People v. Cowan, 

supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 465.)

At trial, Oscar certainly had “insufficient present 

recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately” about 

the matter. (Evid. Code, § 1237, subd. (a).) Defendant contends 

instead that he had too little recollection at trial. Citing People 

v. Simmons (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 677, he argues that the third 

requirement — that the witness testifies the statement was 

true — is lacking. In Simmons, after the witness had made the 

statement in question, he suffered a head injury causing 

amnesia. At trial, he could not remember making the statement 

or whether it was true. All he could say was that he had no 

reason not to tell the truth. The Court of Appeal held that was 

insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. As it noted, 

“the witness did not, and was unable to, attest to the accuracy 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

34

of the matters contained in his previous statement.” (Id. at p. 

682.)

This case is different than People v. Simmons, supra, 123 

Cal.App.3d 677. Like the witness in Simmons, Oscar did not 

remember the statements. But, unlike the witness in Simmons,

he testified that he remembered talking with the police and, 

critically, he remembered that he told them the truth.

In People v. Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th 401, the witness 

testified that he had told the truth regarding the statement in 

question “to the best of his ability,” although he admitted that 

his memory had been “ ‘jumbled’ and ‘scrambled’ because of” 

drug use. (Id. at p. 466.) We found this testimony sufficient to 

admit the prior statement. We explained that “ ‘whether an 

adequate foundation for admission’ of a statement under 

Evidence Code section 1237 has been established turns on 

whether the declarant’s ‘testimony that [the] statement was 

true was reliable,’ and the trial court who hears the declarant’s 

testimony has ‘the best opportunity’ to assess its credibility.” 

(Id. at p. 467.) We concluded that, “[u]nder the circumstances, 

we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in 

determining the statement was sufficiently reliable to be 

admitted under [Evidence Code] section 1237.” (Ibid.)

Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion in finding Oscar’s 

testimony that he told the truth sufficiently reliable to admit the 

evidence. That Oscar remembered telling the truth was quite 

credible even though he could not remember what he said. The 

court or jury could reasonably find that a child would normally 

tell the truth in that situation and could remember that he did 

so even though he remembered little else.

Defendant also argues that, because Oscar remembered 

little about the events when he testified, admitting the prior 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

35

statements violated his constitutional rights to confront and 

cross-examine witnesses. However, as the United States 

Supreme Court has stated, “when the declarant appears for 

cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no 

constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” 

(Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 59-60, fn. 9.) This 

is true even if the witness cannot recall the statement. 

“Defendant contends there can be no constitutionally effective 

cross-examination when the witness cannot recall the facts 

related in the hearsay statement. [Citations.] But the high 

court has squarely rejected that contention, concluding that 

‘when a hearsay declarant is present at trial and subject to 

unrestricted cross-examination,’ ‘the traditional protections of 

the oath, cross-examination, and opportunity for the jury to 

observe the witness’[s] demeanor satisfy the constitutional 

requirements,’ notwithstanding the witness’s claimed memory 

loss about the facts related in the hearsay statement. (United 

States v. Owens (1988) 484 U.S. 554, 559-560.) Nothing in 

Crawford casts doubt on the continuing vitality of Owens.” 

(People v. Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 468; see People v. 

Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 632-633 [similar].)

Defendant was permitted to cross-examine Oscar, and the 

jury could observe his demeanor. Importantly, defendant was 

also able to cross-examine other witnesses, present evidence 

about the circumstances under which Oscar made the 

statements, and present any other evidence relevant to the

credibility of those statements. This was sufficient to satisfy 

defendant’s confrontation rights.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

36

e. Restrictions on Defendant’s Presentation of 

Evidence To Impeach Oscar’s Credibility

Defendant sought to challenge Oscar’s credibility by 

presenting evidence of his prior statements and some of his 

testimony at previous trials. The court admitted some of the 

statements and testimony but not all. Given Oscar’s testimony 

that he could remember little of the events of August 4, 1997, 

which the court found not to be evasive, the court generally 

found that the statements it excluded were not inconsistent with 

his trial testimony and, additionally, were not admissible as

past recollections recorded. Defendant contends the court erred 

by excluding those statements.

We need not review in detail the court’s many rulings, 

because even if we assume the court erred under California law 

in excluding any or all of the proffered statements, the error was 

harmless and was not so severe as to violate defendant’s federal 

constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.

The court permitted defendant to admit the following 

statements over the prosecutor’s hearsay objections. On crossexamination of Oscar, defense counsel elicited that in an earlier 

trial, he said, “[N]o” when asked whether the “person in the 

courtroom today [is] the person who came in,” and he shook his 

head when asked if he saw the person “here today.”

Defense counsel elicited testimony from prosecution 

witness Camarino Reyes that around August 10, 1997, Oscar 

told him “that he saw a big man.”

Oscar’s biological father, Jose H., testified that after

August 20, 1997, he took Oscar to his home in Idaho. Oscar told 

Jose H. that his mother would come back for him and that she 

would talk to him. About two or three weeks after August 20, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

37

1997, Oscar also told Jose H. that three men were in the house 

the night his mother died. Oscar gave his father three names of 

the men, only two of which the father remembered. Oscar gave 

the names of “Juan” and either “Marcos” or “Michael.”

Lola Ortiz testified that a few days after the shooting, 

Oscar gave her the names of the persons he saw in the house the 

night his mother died. He said “Juan” was there, as well as a 

man who was Ermanda’s mechanic and a friend of Lorena’s 

called “Big Man.” At one point, Oscar told Ortiz that “Domingo” 

had been there.

Additionally, the jury viewed the videotape of Sergeant 

Dempsie’s second interview with Oscar the day of the shooting, 

in which Oscar identified defendant’s photograph from a lineup 

but also said he saw two men named Juan and Michael in the 

room.

The trial court also admitted testimony from Oscar’s 

therapist making clear that Oscar had long been mired in a 

“fantasy-reality tug of war.” For example, she described a 

session where Oscar said that his mom was under the couch and 

talking to him — and another session where Oscar said that his 

mom had not been murdered but instead cut herself with a 

knife. 

Defendant argues that the court erroneously excluded

other items of evidence that had been admitted at previous 

trials. He also argues that because the previous trials had 

resulted in the jury being unable to reach a verdict, the different 

rulings at the third trial were prejudicial.

In addition to Oscar’s statements that his father testified 

about at this trial, Jose H. had also testified at an earlier trial

that a few weeks after the crimes, Oscar also told him the 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

38

following: Three men had entered the house the night of the 

crimes, cut the telephone cord, and manhandled Lorena and 

Ermanda. The men gave them beer, and soon Lorena was “face 

up” with two men while the third was with Ermanda. They 

heard firecrackers, and his mother hid him under the bed. 

Oscar ran to where the blood was and started to move his 

mother. His sister was in a room, and his mother was running 

all over. Jose H. also testified that Oscar no longer told him that 

any of these men had brought him ice cream.

The trial court also excluded at the instant trial 

statements that Oscar made to two investigators in Idaho three 

months after the shooting in which he went into lurid details 

about what he saw the morning of the shooting that were, as 

defendant puts it in his brief, not corroborated and “contradicted 

by the evidence and common sense.” Specifically, Oscar said 

that a person he had seen with a gun got a hammer and hit him 

in the stomach and back and pulled his shirt. The man ran 

around and broke everything including a clock and toys. Oscar 

said he hid under the bed. He also said he was tied up with a 

rope, and the man gave him medicine to drink, but Oscar did not 

drink it. Oscar said the man broke a window, hit a door with 

the hammer, hit his sister on the head and stomach, and there 

was blood on the man’s hat and hands.

Defendant also sought unsuccessfully to present

additional statements from Oscar’s prior testimony.

In light of the evidence of Oscar’s statements that the 

court did admit at the third trial, as well as his actual trial 

testimony — in which he remembered little and identified a 

photograph of a man other than defendant as having been in the 

house that morning — and the other evidence defendant
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

39

presented challenging Oscar’s credibility, the jury knew that, by 

the time he testified, more than two years after the shooting, 

Oscar’s memory had been largely corrupted. The jury knew that 

Oscar’s trial identification of defendant, which he quickly 

changed to say he did not remember, and his identification at 

trial of the photograph of a different man, were, by themselves,

not reliable. Admission of the additional statements and more 

of his prior testimony would not have significantly added to the 

picture the jury already had concerning Oscar’s testimony.

The real credibility issue for the jury to resolve was the 

reliability of Oscar’s statements and identifications on the 

morning of August 4, 1997. Indeed, the credibility question was 

even narrower than that. It was undisputed, and corroborated 

by defendant himself, that Oscar correctly identified defendant 

as the man who had brought him ice cream. The only disputed 

question was the accuracy of Oscar’s statement to Sergeant 

Dempsie that the man who brought him ice cream (i.e., 

defendant) was also the man he saw in the bedroom. Defendant

was permitted to present all the evidence he wished concerning 

the statements of August 4, 1997, and the surrounding 

circumstances, including what occurred in the Chandi house 

that morning.

The jury knew from the evidence actually presented that, 

very soon after his initial statement, Oscar began adding new 

details that were inconsistent and incredible. Defendant 

presented much evidence, including expert testimony, that 

accounted for this. Some of Oscar’s statements that were 

admitted at earlier trials but excluded from this one were 

perhaps more lurid and incredible than the admitted 

statements. But under all of the circumstances, excluding those 

statements was not prejudicial. What was important, and what
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

40

became obvious to the jury, was that Oscar’s memory was 

quickly corrupted by the many factors defendant identified at 

trial. Further evidence on that score would have done little to 

undermine the credibility of Oscar’s initial statement

implicating defendant, which he made very soon after the 

incident and which was largely corroborated by defendant 

himself and the positioning of the bodies. Because Oscar had 

learned in the interim that defendant was named Juan, we also 

see little significance in the fact that, in later statements to his 

father, Oscar simply used defendant’s name and no longer 

referred to him as the man who brought him ice cream.

For these reasons, to the extent any error was of state law, 

we would find it harmless because it is not reasonably probable 

the result would have been more favorable to defendant had the 

excluded evidence been admitted. (People v. Merriman, supra, 

60 Cal.4th at p. 69.) Defendant also contends the rulings 

violated his federal constitutional rights, including the right to 

confront witnesses. To establish a violation of his right of 

confrontation, defendant must show that the excluded evidence 

“would have produced ‘a significantly different impression of 

[the witness’s] credibility.’ ” (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 

894, 946, quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673, 

680.) On this record, we cannot say that he has made that 

showing. Nor can defendant show that the rulings made the 

trial fundamentally unfair. (Merriman, at p. 70.)

f. Restricting the Testimony of a Defense Expert 

Witness

As part of his effort to challenge Oscar’s credibility, 

defendant called Dr. Susan Streeter to provide expert testimony 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

41

on the reliability of child witnesses. Defendant contends the 

court erroneously restricted the scope of her testimony.

Before Dr. Streeter testified, the prosecutor objected to 

any testimony expressing her opinion of Oscar himself. Citing 

People v. Page (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 161, the court ruled that Dr. 

Streeter could testify about factors that could affect a child’s 

credibility, but she could not give an opinion regarding Oscar’s

own credibility. Specifically, the court ruled that “Doctor 

Streeter is certainly qualified and may testify about Oscar’s 

developmental stage and the general principles that apply to a 

child of that age insofar as reliability is concerned. . . . If she 

has an opinion generally as to children of that developmental 

age as to reliability, she may discuss those principles. . . . She 

may state the general principles involved as to a child of that 

developmental age, but beyond that, there’s ample evidence 

before the jury to make that determination, and the proffered 

expert testimony would not be admissible.” The court also 

prohibited Dr. Streeter from citing hearsay evidence that would 

have supported her opinion regarding Oscar’s credibility.

Defendant contends the court erred in restricting Dr. 

Streeter’s testimony in this way. It did not. “When expert 

opinion is offered, much must be left to the trial court’s 

discretion.” (People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 403.) 

We see no abuse of discretion. In People v. Page, supra, 2 

Cal.App.4th 161, the case the trial court cited, an expert 

testified about factors that could cause a false confession. The 

Court of Appeal held that the trial court acted properly in not 

additionally permitting the expert “to discuss the particular 

evidence in this case or to give his opinion regarding the overall 

reliability of the confession.” (Id. at p. 188.) It was for the jury, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

42

not an expert, to determine the reliability of the actual 

confession. (Id. at pp. 187-189.)

Similarly, the trial court properly permitted Dr. Streeter 

to testify about factors the jury should consider in judging 

Oscar’s credibility and the reliability of his statements of August 

4, 1997, and then leaving it to the jury to apply that testimony 

to the actual facts. “The general rule is that an expert may not 

give an opinion whether a witness is telling the truth, for the 

determination of credibility is not a subject sufficiently beyond 

common experience that the expert’s opinion would assist the 

trier of fact; in other words, the jury generally is as well 

equipped as the expert to discern whether a witness is being 

truthful.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 

82; see People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 628 [similar]; 

People v. Sergill (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [abuse of 

discretion to admit expert opinion that a witness was credible].) 

The jury heard Dr. Streeter’s testimony, it heard Oscar’s 

testimony and could observe his demeanor, and it heard the 

remaining testimony relevant to his credibility. It was fully 

qualified to judge for itself, without additional expert help, the 

credibility and reliability of Oscar’s testimony and his 

statements of August 4, 1997.

Contrary to defendant’s additional argument, because the 

trial court properly prohibited Dr. Streeter from giving an 

opinion regarding Oscar’s actual credibility, it also properly 

prohibited her from citing hearsay evidence to support that 

prohibited opinion. We see no error.

2. Admission of Defendant’s Confession

Defendant argues that the court should have excluded his 

confession on two grounds: (1) it was tainted by a violation of 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

43

the rules of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, during the 

August 5, 1997, interview between Detective Shear and 

defendant; and (2) it was involuntary.

a. Factual Background

Before the first trial, defendant moved to exclude his 

confession, and the court presided over an evidentiary hearing

concerning the interviews between defendant and police 

culminating in his confession. The testimony at the hearing was 

generally consistent with the evidence later presented at trial, 

except that it contained some testimony relevant to the 

suppression motion not presented at trial. We will focus on the 

testimony relevant to defendant’s arguments.

The August 5, 1997, interview between Detective Shear 

and defendant was recorded; the court listened to critical 

portions of the recording. The purpose of the interview was for 

the detective to give defendant a “voice stress analyzer” test. 

Defendant had agreed to submit to questioning to prepare for

the test and then to take the test itself. Detective Shear testified

that the first part of the interview was “a preinterview for the 

purpose of preparing the questions for the examination.” At the 

outset of the interview, he reminded defendant of the Miranda

rights that he had previously waived. He said, “All those rights 

still apply to you, Juan. You have the right to remain silent, you 

don’t have to talk to us, you don’t have to submit to this test, you 

have the right to talk to an attorney and everything.” He added,

“You know that you don’t have to talk to me? You don’t have to. 

You can say I don’t want to talk to you. I don’t want to take this 

test. I don’t want to talk to you. Do you want to talk to me? 

Will you answer questions for me?” Defendant responded, “Yes, 

why not?”
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

44

Later in the interview came an exchange during which

defendant contends he invoked his right to remain silent. After 

listening to the tape, the court found the following occurred. 

Defendant said, “I want you to put the machine, sir.” Detective 

Shear said, “Beg your pardon?” Defendant said, “I want you to 

put the machine on me.” Detective Shear responded, “Yeah, I 

know.” Defendant said, “I’m not going to say nothing more. I 

told you the truth. That’s the truth.” Detective Shear asked, 

“Now you just want to take the test?” Defendant responded, 

“Yes.” Detective Shear continued asking defendant questions 

about the case and eventually administered the test.3 

Defendant still denied involvement in the murders.

As at trial, defendant testified that the police repeatedly 

threatened him and ignored his requests to have an attorney, 

testimony the officers denied.

The court denied defendant’s suppression motion in a 

written ruling. It found not credible defendant’s testimony that 

he had been threatened and had repeatedly requested counsel; 

it found credible the officers’ contrary testimony. It also found 

that defendant had not been coerced. After quoting the colloquy 

that defendant contended constituted an invocation of the right 

to silence, the court stated, “Considering the content of the 

exchange and the surrounding circumstances, the court does not 

find Mr. Sanchez invoked his right to terminate questioning.” 

In a separate ruling, the court also found that the investigators 

never advised defendant of his consular rights under the Vienna 

 

3 At defendant’s request, the court ordered that the test

itself not be mentioned at trial.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

45

Convention on Consular Relations, but that the failure to do so 

did not require suppression of the confession.

b. Analysis

When reviewing a ruling admitting a confession, we accept 

the trial court’s resolution of any factual dispute to the extent 

the record supports it, but otherwise we determine 

independently whether the confession was taken in violation of 

the rules of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, or was 

involuntary. (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 551.) On 

both questions, the People bear the burden of proof by a 

preponderance of the evidence. (Ibid.) Here, defendant and the 

officers provided sharply differing testimony of what occurred. 

The court resolved this factual dispute by finding the officers 

credible and defendant not credible. The record, including the 

taped statements themselves, supports the court’s credibility 

determination, and we accept it. (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 

Cal.4th 731, 751.) Accordingly, we will consider the taped 

statements and the officers’ testimony, but not defendant’s

contrary testimony, to determine independently whether the 

confession was admissible.

Defendant contends he invoked his right to remain silent 

when he told Detective Shear during the August 5, 1997, 

interview, “I’m not going to say nothing more. I told you the 

truth. That’s the truth.” If a defendant invokes his Miranda

rights, questioning must cease. (People v. Gonzalez (2005) 34 

Cal.4th 1111, 1122.) However, when, as in this case, a 

defendant has waived his Miranda rights and agreed to talk 

with police, any subsequent invocation of the right to counsel or 

the right to remain silent must be unequivocal and 

unambiguous. (Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. 370, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

46

381-382 [right to remain silent]; Davis v. United States (1994) 

512 U.S. 452, 461-462 [right to an attorney].) “The question 

whether a suspect has waived the right to counsel with 

sufficient clarity prior to the commencement of interrogation is 

a separate inquiry from the question whether, subsequent to a 

valid waiver, he or she effectively has invoked the right to 

counsel. [Citations.] It is settled that in the latter circumstance, 

after a knowing and voluntary waiver, interrogation may 

proceed ‘until and unless the suspect clearly requests an 

attorney.’ (Davis v. United States [, supra,] 512 U.S. [at p.] 461, 

italics added.) Indeed, officers may, but are not required to, seek 

clarification of ambiguous responses before continuing 

substantive interrogation. (Id. at p. 459.)” (People v. Williams

(2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 427.) The same rules apply to an 

invocation of the right to silence as apply to the invocation of the 

right to counsel. (Berghuis v. Thompkins, at p. 381; Williams, 

at pp. 433-434.)

“[T]he question of ambiguity in an asserted invocation 

must include a consideration of the communicative aspect of the 

invocation — what would a listener understand to be the 

defendant’s meaning. The high court has explained — in the 

context of a postwaiver invocation — that this is an objective 

inquiry, identifying as ambiguous or equivocal those responses 

that ‘a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would 

have understood [to signify] only that the suspect might be 

invoking the right to counsel.’ . . . [¶] In certain situations, 

words that would be plain if taken literally actually may be 

equivocal under an objective standard, in the sense that in 

context it would not be clear to the reasonable listener what the 

defendant intends.” (People v. Williams, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 

428-429.) “A defendant has not invoked his or her right to 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

47

silence when the defendant’s statements were merely 

expressions of passing frustration or animosity toward the 

officers, or amounted only to a refusal to discuss a particular 

subject covered by the questioning.” (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 

Cal.4th 76, 115.)

In context, defendant’s statement, “I’m not going to say 

nothing more,” was not an unambiguous invocation of his right 

to remain silent. Instead, the statement showed impatience to 

take the voice stress analyzer test. Other than the one 

statement, defendant was cooperative during that interview and 

always willing to talk. We agree with the trial court’s analysis: 

“In context, Mr. Sanchez was not seeking to terminate the 

interview. Shear had explained to Mr. Sanchez the voice stress 

test was like a lie detector and would determine whether Mr. 

Sanchez was telling the truth when he denied involvement in 

the deaths of his friends. At the point of dispute, Mr. Sanchez 

did not state he wanted to be silent. He did not indicate a refusal 

to talk about the case. By implication, he indicated impatience 

with Shear’s pretest interrogation and clearly stated he wanted 

to proceed to the test portion of the interview. Mr. Sanchez’s 

insistence that Shear proceed with testing him by the ‘machine’ 

does not equate to an invocation of his right of silence.”

Contrary to defendant’s additional arguments, nothing 

else in the interview between Detective Shear and defendant 

supports the conclusion that he invoked his right to silence. 

Because we find that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his 

right to silence, we need not consider the Attorney General’s 

further argument that any Miranda violation on August 5 

(when defendant continued to deny guilt) did not taint his 

confession the next day, which was preceded by another waiver 

of his rights.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

48

Defendant also contends his confession was involuntary. 

He “is of course correct that ‘[a]n involuntary confession may not 

be introduced into evidence at trial.’ ” (People v. Spencer (2018) 

5 Cal.5th 642, 672.) “ ‘A statement is involuntary if it is not the 

product of “ ‘a rational intellect and free will.’ ” (Mincey v. 

Arizona (1978) 437 U.S. 385, 398.) The test for determining 

whether a confession is voluntary is whether the defendant’s 

“will was overborne at the time he confessed.” ’ ” (People v. 

McWhorter (2009) 47 Cal.4th 318, 346-347.) “In assessing 

whether statements were the product of free will or coercion, we 

consider the totality of the circumstances, including ‘ “ ‘the 

crucial element of police coercion,’ ” ’ the length, location, and 

continuity of the interrogation, and the defendant’s maturity, 

education, and physical and mental health.” (People v. Duff, 

supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 555-556.) Police coercion is, indeed,

crucial. To be considered involuntary, a confession must result 

from coercive state activity. (Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 

U.S. 157, 165; People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 483, 502.)

Defendant’s testimony would have supported a finding 

that his confession was coerced. But, as noted, the trial court 

discredited that testimony in favor of the officers’ testimony that 

they did not threaten or coerce him. We accept that credibility 

finding. Except for defendant’s testimony, there was no 

evidence of police coercion. Although there were multiple 

interrogations, none was particularly lengthy, and they were 

spread out over three days. He ultimately confessed about 20 to 

30 minutes into an interview that began after he had eaten 

lunch. Because there was no police coercion, defendant 

confession was not involuntary.

As defendant notes, the police did not notify him of his 

consular rights under article 36 of the Vienna Convention on 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

49

Consular Relations. Defendant is a Mexican national, although 

it appears that at the time of his arrest, he had lived in this 

country longer than he lived in Mexico. However, “the United 

States Supreme Court made it clear that an officer’s failure to 

notify a suspect of his or her consular rights does not, in itself, 

render a confession inadmissible.” (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 

Cal.4th 735, 756, citing Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) 548 

U.S. 331.) Instead, “[a] defendant can raise an Article 36 claim

as part of a broader challenge to the voluntariness of his 

statements to police.” (Sanchez-Llamas, at p. 350.) Defendant 

has done so. But nothing about the failure to notify defendant 

of this right coerced him into confessing. “As the SanchezLlamas court noted, article 36 ‘secures only a right of foreign 

nationals to have their consulate informed of their arrest or 

detention — not to have . . . law enforcement authorities cease 

their investigation pending any such notice or intervention.’ 

(Sanchez-Llamas, supra, 548 U.S. at p. 349.)” (Enraca, at p. 

758.) We have no basis on which to find the confession 

involuntary.

For these reasons, we uphold the trial court’s ruling 

admitting the confession.

3. Admission of Evidence of Defendant’s Sexual 

Relationship with a Witness

Over objection, the trial court admitted evidence that 

defendant and prosecution witness Hernandez had had a sexual 

relationship. Defendant contends the court erred.

a. Factual Background

During Detective Shear’s testimony, the prosecutor sought 

to admit evidence of Hernandez’s sexual relationship with 

defendant. He argued it was relevant: (1) to defendant’s 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

50

veracity in his interview with Detective Shear, when he said 

differing things regarding his relationship with Hernandez; and 

(2) to Hernandez’s credibility, particularly his credibility when 

he denied seeing defendant the morning of the murders. The 

court deferred a ruling pending further evidence, and the 

proffered testimony was not presented at that time. Later, the 

prosecutor again sought to present the evidence. Defendant 

objected to the evidence as unduly prejudicial.

The court ruled the evidence admissible: “There is 

certainly a legitimate concern about potential undue prejudice, 

and I recognize that. However, I agree that . . . the veracity of 

Mr. Hernandez is a critical issue in this case. It certainly makes 

a great deal of difference whether or not Mr. Sanchez’s wife, who 

has provided an alibi that he was asleep at the time the murders 

occurred, whether or not that is true, or whether or not he was 

active and about in the community of Porterville at or about the 

time of the homicide. There are also other reasonable inferences 

that can be drawn depending upon what the fact finder finds to 

be the situation. There is a material difference between a 

friendship, even a close friendship, and an intimate 

relationship, particularly an intimate relationship wherein the 

person whose veracity is at issue has expressed love for the 

principal at issue.” The court found the probative value of the 

evidence outweighed any potential for prejudice.

Thus, the court permitted testimony from Hernandez 

regarding his sexual relationship with defendant (see pt. I.A.2, 

ante), and cross-examination of defendant regarding that 

relationship and statements he made about it to Detective Shear 

and Sergeant Garay. (See also pt. II.A.5, post [concerning a 

related contention].) Defendant admitted in court that he had 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

51

had a sexual relationship with Hernandez but denied that it 

lasted five years, as Hernandez had testified.

At defendant’s request, the court agreed to give the jury a 

limiting instruction, and it did so on three occasions. The first 

occurred at the beginning of Hernandez’s testimony regarding 

the relationship. The court admonished: “This evidence is being 

introduced for the purpose of showing, if it does, that Mr. 

Sanchez and Mr. Hernandez were engaged in a consensual 

sexual relationship and on more than one occasion. This 

evidence . . . is admitted for a limited purpose. It may be used 

to judge the credibility and believability of Mr. Hernandez when 

he denied seeing Juan Sanchez on August the 4th, 1977 [sic], at 

about five o’clock in the morning. It may be used to evaluate the 

truthfulness of Mr. Sanchez’s statements to Detective Shear 

relating to his relationship with Mr. Hernandez, and it may be 

used in considering the credibility and believability of Mr. 

Sanchez’s testimony at trial. It absolutely is not being 

introduced for any other purpose unless I direct you otherwise.”

The court added, “Obviously, consensual adult sexual 

relationships are not illegal in our society. As a matter of fact, 

there are constitutional protections in place that recognize 

that.” It instructed that if any juror could not accept the limiting 

instruction, the juror should so inform the bailiff. No juror did 

so.

During a break in the testimony, outside the jury’s 

presence, defense counsel requested the court also to tell the 

jury that the evidence could not be considered to show a

propensity to commit the charged crimes. The court stated that 

it had “intentionally left it out because sexual relationships 

between two adults is not bad character. That’s why instead of 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

52

saying bad character and . . . giving it a negative connotation, I 

gave it a positive connotation by reminding the jurors that it’s 

constitutionally protected.” The court added that the evidence 

did have some probative value because it “suggests that Mr. 

Sanchez is not averse to sodomy.” But the court offered to give

a more complete admonition during jury instructions. The 

prosecutor also noted that the court had erroneously stated the 

year 1977 instead of 1997. But everyone agreed the mistake

could not have confused the jury.

The second admonition came during cross-examination of 

defendant. The court again explained that “there was evidence 

introduced yesterday again on the consensual sexual 

relationship between Mr. Sanchez and Hector Hernandez. I just 

want to remind you I’ve already given you a limited instruction 

on the use of that evidence, and I just want to remind you at this 

point again that it is being offered for a limited purpose of, 

among other — excuse me, the limited purpose of judging the 

credibility of Mr. Hector Hernandez. It may be used in 

considering the truthfulness of Mr. Sanchez’s testimony in 

court. It may be used to consider the truthfulness of Mr. 

Sanchez’s testimony relating to his whereabouts on the morning 

in question, and as I believe I already mentioned, it may be used 

in judging Mr. Sanchez’s credibility. It is admitted for those 

limited purposes.” A short time later, the court added, “And I 

think this goes without saying, that you’re not permitted to 

consider that evidence for any other purpose than one that the 

court has instructed you may consider, and you will get a formal 

jury instruction on this at the time of jury instructions.”

The third admonition came as part of the jury instructions 

after the evidence had been presented. The court stated: 

“Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing, if it 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

53

does, that the defendant and Hector Hernandez were engaged 

in a consensual sexual relationship. Such evidence, if believed, 

may not be considered by you to prove that Mr. Sanchez is a 

person of bad character or that he has a disposition to commit 

crimes, including the crimes for which he is now charged. Such 

evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the 

limited purpose of determining if it tends to show the 

following: . . . The credibility/believability of Mr. Hector 

Hernandez when he denied seeing Juan Sanchez on August the 

4th, 1997, at or about five o’clock in the morning; the 

credibility/believability of Juan Sanchez’s statements to police 

officers and his testimony at trial. For the limited purpose for 

which you may consider this evidence, you must weigh it in the 

same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are 

not permitted to consider this evidence for any other purpose.”

b. Analysis

Defendant contends the court erred in admitting the 

evidence because it was irrelevant and, even if relevant, it 

should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial under Evidence 

Code section 352. “The trial court enjoys broad discretion in 

determining the relevance of evidence and in assessing whether 

concerns of undue prejudice, confusion, or consumption of time 

substantially outweigh the probative value of particular 

evidence.” (People v. Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 572.) We see 

no abuse of discretion. The court carefully exercised its 

discretion. Its ruling was not arbitrary, capricious, or absurd. 

(Ibid.)

“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence 

relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, 

having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

54

fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” 

(Evid. Code, § 210, italics added.) If relevant, a court has 

discretion to admit evidence of a sexual relationship. (People v. 

Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 132-134 [evidence admitted at 

the defendant’s request over the prosecution’s objection with a 

limiting instruction].)

Here, as indicated in the trial court’s ruling, although the 

evidence was somewhat relevant to judging the credibility of 

defendant’s denial of guilt in the interview with Detective Shear 

and his trial testimony, it was primarily admitted on the 

question of Hernandez’s credibility. Defendant presented an 

alibi that he was asleep in his bed between around 4:30 and 6:30 

to 7:00 a.m. the morning of the murders. Hernandez testified 

that, the night before, he had asked defendant to give him a ride 

to work that morning. Defendant was supposed to come to 

Hernandez’s home around 6:00 a.m. Evidence, including 

testimony from Hernandez’s brother, showed that Hernandez 

called his brother for a ride just after 5:30 a.m. because he feared 

defendant would not come. Calling him that early would be odd 

if Hernandez had no reason at 5:30 a.m. to believe defendant 

would not arrive by 6:00 a.m. Margarita Ruiz testified that 

Hernandez told her that defendant had been at his house at 5:00 

a.m. that morning. If so, that would disprove defendant’s alibi, 

something obviously of consequence to determining his guilt. It 

would also place defendant within about a three-minute drive of 

the crime scene shortly before the murders, and it would show

that defendant did not give Hernandez the promised ride to 

work but instead was doing something else during the time the 

crime was committed. Hernandez denied seeing defendant that 

morning. As the trial court explained in exercising its 

discretion, whether this denial was credible was an important 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

55

question at trial. That Hernandez had a sexual relationship 

with and loved defendant showed possible bias and was 

probative of his credibility.

Moreover, the court gave pointed and emphatic limiting 

instructions not once, but three times during the trial. “We 

presume the jury understood and followed the instruction.” 

(People v. Homick (2012) 55 Cal.4th 816, 873.) Defendant 

contends the limiting instructions were inadequate, and the 

court should instead have given a slightly different instruction 

that his attorney suggested. We disagree. The instructions 

were precise and carefully limited the jury’s consideration of the 

evidence to its proper sphere. We see no error.

4. Admission of Evidence That Defendant Possessed a 

Firearm

Over defendant’s objection, the court admitted evidence 

that he possessed a firearm around the time of the murders. 

Defendant contends the court erred. Preliminarily, the Attorney 

General argues defendant forfeited any argument as to 

Catherine Barrera’s testimony because he did not object to it at 

the third trial. However, defendant did object to the testimony 

at the first two trials. Before the third trial, the court stated 

that it was reiterating its rulings made during the first two 

trials. Under the circumstances, defendant’s previous two 

objections were sufficient to preserve the contention.

Turning to the merits, we see no error. Defendant invokes 

the rule, established in People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 577, 

and reiterated in People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 

1056, that it is generally error to admit evidence that the 

defendant possessed a weapon that could not have been the one

used in the charged crime. That rule does not apply here. Here, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

56

the murder weapon was never found, but the evidence showed 

it was likely a nine-millimeter firearm. The firearm the 

witnesses testified about could easily have been the one used in 

the murders. “Although the witnesses did not establish the gun 

necessarily was the murder weapon, it might have been. Unlike 

People v. Riser, supra, 47 Cal.2d at page 577, this evidence did 

not merely show that defendant was a person who possesses 

guns, but showed he possessed a gun that might have been the 

murder weapon . . . . The evidence was thus relevant and 

admissible as circumstantial evidence that he committed the 

charged offenses.” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 

1052; see People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 956 [similar].)

Evidence that shortly before the murders defendant 

possessed a firearm that could have been the murder weapon 

was similarly relevant and admissible as circumstantial 

evidence that he committed the murders. Contrary to

defendant’s additional argument, we see no abuse of discretion 

in not excluding the evidence as unduly prejudicial under

Evidence Code section 352.

5. Cross-examination of Defendant

Defendant contends the court erred in permitting certain 

cross-examination when he testified.

a. Factual Background

At one point in the interview between defendant and 

Sergeant Garay, after confessing to shooting the victims, 

defendant said, “I don’t want to talk anymore, Garay. No more. 

But I can help you.” At a pretrial hearing, the trial court ruled 

that this statement was an invocation of defendant’s right to 

silence, and it ordered the prosecution not to present in its casein-chief evidence of any later statements.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

57

During his cross-examination of defendant, the prosecutor 

informed the court outside the jury’s presence that, to impeach 

defendant’s credibility, he wanted to question defendant about 

statements he made to Sergeant Garay after he invoked his 

right to silence regarding his relationship with Hernandez. The 

prosecutor argued that defendant “lied to Garay, and he did so 

after, the date after admitting, and he goes back to lying. Lying 

seems to be the most comfortable communication for him and 

that’s what I’m seeking to demonstrate for the jury.” The court 

asked how the statements were inconsistent with defendant’s 

trial testimony. The prosecutor responded: “It’s not a 

consistency. It goes merely to show he has lied in this case in 

the past when asked direct questions.” The court deferred a 

ruling and asked the prosecutor to provide authority supporting 

the request.

Later, citing Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, the 

court ruled that statements made after defendant invoked his 

right to silence could be used for impeachment. The court stated 

that it would give the jury a limiting instruction. Defendant 

objected under Evidence Code section 352. The prosecutor 

reiterated why the testimony would be impeaching: “I think it’s 

very relevant that [defendant] is denying yet again on the day 

that he’s making his confession because . . . [defense] counsel 

seeks to argue that his confession is tainted because he 

obviously cannot come up with true factors related to the 

murders, and that’s because he doesn’t know about the murders, 

and that’s why he is unable to come up with these and that 

shows that he’s an innocent person who’s falsely confessing. 

However, at the same time that he’s being asked about that and 

not coming up with what is factually accurate with the murder 

scene, he’s also being asked about his relationship — or he has 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

58

been asked about his relationship with Hector, certainly a 

subject that he would have intimate knowledge about, and he’s 

not coming up with the truth, either, until pressed. And so it’s 

very relevant.”

The court permitted the requested impeachment, finding 

it “very probative for the very reasons that [the prosecutor] 

stated. It certainly is the type of evidence that can if 

improperly —unless there are appropriate cautions to the jury, 

it is the type of evidence that can certainly cause prejudice and 

on occasion undue prejudice. However, in this case, given the 

nature of the issues in this case, particularly the issue relating 

to the confession, Mr. Sanchez’s — the testimony of Hector 

Hernandez and his veracity and the other limited purposes for 

which it . . . has been offered previously, it is probative and its 

probative value certainly outweighs . . . any undue prejudicial 

effect. So I have weighed those factors and will allow it and deny 

the objection under [Evidence Code section] 352.”

The prosecutor questioned defendant about statements he 

made to Sergeant Garay regarding his relationship with 

Hernandez that occurred after the point at which the court had 

ruled defendant invoked his right to silence. Defendant testified 

that he originally denied having a sexual relationship, then 

gradually admitted it when asked further questions.

In addition to the limiting instructions described in part 

II.A.3.a, ante, the court gave the following instruction at the end 

of the evidence portion of trial: “At one point in the videotaped 

statement to Sergeant Garay, Mr. Sanchez stated, quote, ‘I don’t 

want to talk anymore,’ unquote, and I believe that’s found on 

page 44 of the transcript that is in evidence. In any event, as to 

any statements made by Mr. Sanchez to Sergeant Garay after 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

59

this point in time, you are to consider only such statements, if 

any, that are inconsistent with his trial testimony. Any such 

statements may be considered by you only for the purpose of 

testing the defendant’s credibility. You are not to consider such 

statements as evidence of guilt. This limiting instruction does 

not apply to statements which you find were made prior to Mr. 

Sanchez’s statement, ‘I don’t want to talk anymore.’ ” The court 

then repeated the instruction.

b. Analysis

Defendant contends the court should have prohibited the 

cross-examination into his sexual relationship with Hernandez

both because it was unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code 

section 352 and because the cross-examination about his 

statements to Sergeant Garay violated his Miranda rights.

The first argument largely reprises his similar argument 

challenging the evidence previously admitted about the 

relationship between defendant and Hernandez. (See pt. II.A.3, 

ante.) Although not strongly probative, the cross-examination 

was somewhat relevant to impeach defendant for the reasons 

the prosecutor and the court identified. One defense theory of 

the case, suggested in the defense’s opening statement to the 

jury, was that defendant withheld information that the actual 

killer would have known, which showed that he was ignorant of 

that information; that, in turn, showed that his confession was 

false. Evidence that, even after he confessed, defendant 

continued lying and withholding information was probative on 

this point and was thus probative of the credibility of 

defendant’s testimony that he confessed falsely. Because 

evidence of the sexual relationship had already been admitted, 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

60

any additional prejudicial effect was slight. We see no abuse of 

discretion under Evidence Code section 352.

A statement that is otherwise voluntary, but taken in 

violation of the Miranda rules, may be admitted to impeach a 

defendant who testifies. (Harris v. New York, supra, 401 U.S. 

222; People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 32.) Defendant 

contends this rule does not apply because his testimony on direct 

examination was not inconsistent with the admitted 

statements, and the cross-examination concerned only collateral 

matters. We need not resolve this point, because any error was 

harmless in light of the evidence that was properly admitted. 

The jury had already heard of the sexual relationship through 

Hernandez’s own testimony, and defendant was also crossexamined about his evasive statements to Detective Shear. The 

brief cross-examination regarding defendant’s statements to 

Sergeant Garay after he invoked his right to silence added little 

to what the jury otherwise knew.

Moreover, the court gave repeated instructions limiting 

the use the jury could make of this testimony, instructions we 

presume the jury understood and followed. Any error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. Admitting Testimony That Was Later Stricken

The prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney David Alavezos,

asked defendant on cross-examination questions about some 

testimony he anticipated he would present later. When he tried 

to present the testimony, it had to be stricken and the jury 

admonished to disregard it, because it turned out to be 

inadmissible hearsay. Defendant contends that, in the process, 

the court committed error, and the prosecutor committed 

misconduct.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

61

a. Factual Background

During presentation of the defense case, Alavezos stated 

outside the jury’s presence that defense counsel had just 

informed him that the defense intended to call Lola Ortiz as a 

defense witness. He said that the defense “just gave me what 

looked like about a little over a hundred pages this morning on 

Lola Ortiz . . . .” He wanted to know for what purpose the 

defense intended to call her. He also said that Ortiz is “not a 

percipient witness to anything, so everything she testifies to is 

hearsay that she’s heard from somebody else.” Defense counsel 

clarified that she intended for Ortiz to testify that Ortiz had not 

seen defendant at the victim’s home.

After this, Alavezos also stated that if defendant called 

Ortiz as a witness, he intended to present evidence that Ortiz 

had told two persons about a conversation between Ermanda 

and defendant shortly before the murders in which defendant 

threatened Ermanda’s daughter. Alavezos acknowledged he 

understood that Ortiz herself was “denying this now,” but the 

two people she told had in turn “independently told officers” that 

Ortiz told them she was present. Defense counsel asserted that 

Ortiz “always says like she was there,” but “[w]hen you really 

ask her, it turns out it’s hearsay from Ermanda, it’s not 

admissible.” Defendant objected on hearsay grounds, and the 

court made no ruling at the time.

The question arose outside the jury’s presence again the 

next day. Defense counsel again objected to the evidence, 

stating that Ortiz had denied hearing the conversation between 

defendant and Ermanda. Counsel suggested that if Ortiz had 

heard of the conversation at all, she might have heard about it 

from Ermanda and did not personally overhear it. Alavezos 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

62

represented that two witnesses, Margaretta Zepeda and Maria 

Alicia Palomares, had told investigators in separate interviews 

that Ortiz told them that she was present during the 

conversation. He described what the witnesses had said. They 

said that Ortiz told them that “she was present when Juan had

gone over to the victim’s residence in the evening to be paid for 

some mechanical work he had done on Ermanda’s car; that 

Ermanda told the defendant her car was running worse than 

before he had worked on it and told defendant Sanchez that if 

he would fix her car she would pay him. Defendant Sanchez 

then told Ermanda that if she didn’t pay him, her daughter 

would pay him, and that [Ortiz] understood this to mean that he 

would harm Lorena.” The prosecutor again acknowledged that 

Ortiz herself did not confirm this.

Based on these representations, the court found “sufficient 

foundation” for the evidence to be admitted. Defense counsel 

requested that it be stricken “if it turns out to be hearsay.” 

Alavezos agreed not to “elicit the source” of the hearsay for the 

time being.

Later Alavezos sought to question defendant on crossexamination about this purported conversation between him 

and Ermanda. When defendant objected, the court ruled outside 

the jury’s presence that the prosecutor could ask the question, 

and, if defendant denied the conversation occurred, it would 

admonish the jury that questions are not evidence. When the 

defense expressed doubt that an admonition would be effective, 

the court responded, “I have a lot of faith in jurors following the 

law. We went through extensive voir dire in this case with the 

questionnaire and everything else. These people appreciate 

their duties.”
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

63

When cross-examination resumed, the prosecutor asked 

defendant about the conversation. Defendant denied that it 

occurred. At that point, the court admonished the jury: “Ladies 

and gentlemen, I think it’s appropriate to remind you, once 

again, that questions of counsel are not evidence. Counsel has 

just asked two questions, Mr. Sanchez has denied it, and unless 

there is some other evidence relating to it, that’s it. It didn’t 

happen. You’re not to speculate otherwise.”

After these events, Ortiz testified as a defense witness

that she had not seen defendant at the Reyes house and 

regarding some statements by Oscar. She was asked no 

questions about the conversation between Ermanda and 

defendant. Later, defense counsel objected under Evidence 

Code section 352 to the prosecutor’s calling Ortiz to question her 

about the conversation. The court found the evidence probative 

and not unduly prejudicial.

Alavezos then called Ortiz as his own witness on rebuttal. 

She denied overhearing the conversation between Ermanda and 

defendant and further denied telling Zepeda or Palomares about 

it. At this point, the court admonished the jury: “Remember, 

ladies and gentlemen, the questions of counsel are not evidence. 

It’s the testimony of the witness that is.”

The prosecutor then called Zepeda as a witness. At a 

hearing outside the jury’s presence, the court permitted 

Alavezos to ask leading questions to minimize the risk of the 

witness saying something prejudicial. On the stand and in the 

presence of the jury, Zepeda then denied that Ortiz told her 

about something defendant had said in Ortiz’s presence. The 

prosecutor questioned her about what she had told the 

investigators. He asked, “Did you talk to them about what 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

64

[Ortiz] had told you that she heard Juan say?” Zepeda 

responded, “No, she did not hear. She was told by Ermanda.”

At that point, at defense counsel’s request, another 

hearing was held outside the jury’s presence. Defendant asked 

that the testimony be stricken and moved for a mistrial. The 

court did not rule on the mistrial motion at the time, but it 

stated the belief than an admonition would be effective. The 

court then admonished the jury: “Ladies and gentlemen, there’s 

been reference in the testimony about something that Ermanda 

purportedly said to somebody else was reported to somebody 

else, that’s hearsay. That’s totally unreliable. So that part of 

this witness’s testimony is stricken. You shall disregard it. Do 

you all understand that? Do you all understand how important 

that is? This case is not going to be decided in any way by 

inadmissible hearsay. Some hearsay is admissible under the 

law, but some is so unreliable it does not come in, and this is 

exactly that type of unreliable hearsay. It’s stricken. You shall 

disregard it in its entirety.”

The prosecutor asked no further questions of Zepeda but 

called Palomares as a witness. She also denied that Ortiz told 

her that Ortiz was present when defendant made the 

statements. At that point, the jury was dismissed, and the 

witness was questioned further in its absence. Palomares said 

she did not know whether Ortiz actually heard the conversation 

between defendant and Ermanda or was merely relating what 

Ermanda had told Ortiz. The prosecutor then stated the intent 

not to question the witness further. The court said it would 

admonish the jury to disregard all of this testimony.

Defense counsel again moved for a mistrial. She claimed 

the prosecutor committed misconduct because he presented the 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

65

evidence knowing it was unreliable for the sole purpose of 

prejudicing the jury. The court asked Alavezos about his good 

faith belief. The prosecutor said he believed from a report by 

Investigator Florencio Camarillo that the witnesses had said 

Ortiz was present during the conversation between defendant 

and Ermanda.

Investigator Camarillo testified outside the jury’s 

presence. He said he spoke with both Zepeda and Palomares. 

He read the relevant portion of his report, dated September 7, 

1999: “Lola [Ortiz] told them the defendant Juan Sanchez had 

gone over to victim’s residence in the evening to be paid for some 

mechanical work he’d done on her car. She told him [sic] that 

Ermanda told . . . defendant that her car was running worse 

than before he worked on it. Ermanda supposedly told 

defendant Sanchez that if he would fix her car, then she would 

pay him. Defendant Sanchez . . . then told Ermanda that if she 

didn’t pay him, her daughter would pay him.”

Investigator Camarillo testified he “assumed” and 

“received” the women’s statements as meaning that Ortiz was 

present for the threat. But his report did not specifically address 

the point. Asked whether he told Alavezos about his 

conversations with Zepeda and Palomares, he said he had. 

Asked further whether what he told Alavezos included that 

Ortiz was present during the conversation, Camarillo answered, 

“That’s how I understood it, yes.”

The court denied defendant’s mistrial motion. It found, 

“based upon what has been presented to me, that Mr. Alavezos 

had a good faith, although apparently mistaken, belief that . . . 

the last two witnesses would impeach Lola Ortiz if she’s denied 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

66

the conversation.” It expressed confidence that, given an 

admonition, the jury would disregard the testimony.

The court admonished the jury: “Ladies and gentlemen, 

all of the rebuttal evidence is stricken. You are to entirely 

disregard it. Now, by rebuttal evidence, I’m talking about the 

evidence today of Lola Ortiz, and thank you for crossing those 

out of your notes, if you made any notes.” The court also struck 

the testimony of Zepeda and Palomares, adding: “You are to 

entirely and totally disregard it. It is unreliable and shall not 

be considered by you in any way whatsoever. You’re to strike it 

from your mind right now, totally. And I’m not only talking 

about the testimony, obviously. By striking testimony, that 

means that the questions of counsel are out, as well, because 

questions of counsel, as you well know, as I’ve previously 

admonished you many times, are not evidence. So there’s 

absolutely nothing to consider relating to the testimony of those 

three witnesses.” The court then asked each juror in turn 

whether that juror understood the admonition and would follow 

it. All responded affirmatively.

The court readmonished the jury as part of its overall 

instructions after the presentation of evidence: “The entire 

testimony of the witnesses Lola Ortiz, Margaretta Zepeda, and 

Marie Palomares, given on Friday, October 9th, 1999, was 

stricken by the court. You are instructed to entirely disregard 

that evidence and not consider it in any way. You are reminded 

of that instruction.” It clarified that the jury could consider 

Ortiz’s earlier testimony when she testified as a defense witness.

b. Analysis

Defendant contends the court erred in not holding a 

hearing to determine whether Ortiz had personal knowledge 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

67

about the purported conversation between him and Ermanda. 

It did not err.

“Subject to Section 801 [concerning expert witnesses], the 

testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is 

inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter. 

Against the objection of a party, such personal knowledge must 

be shown before the witnesses may testify concerning the 

matter.” (Evid. Code, § 702, subd. (a); see People v. Anderson, 

supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 573.) In this case, the court’s discussion 

with counsel of Ortiz’s potential testimony made clear that the 

threat would be admissible only if Ortiz testified she heard 

defendant threaten Ermanda, which neither attorney expected, 

or if Zepeda and Palomares testified Ortiz told them she had 

overheard the threat. Given the parties’ uncertainty about what 

the witnesses would say, the potentially prejudicial nature of 

the information, and the inherent difficulty of stopping a jury 

from considering information once it has been received, it would 

have been prudent for the court to avoid potential prejudice by 

examining the witnesses beforehand outside the jury’s presence. 

(Evid. Code, §§ 402, 702.)

Although the court did not examine the witnesses 

beforehand, it did hold a hearing. The prosecutor represented 

that he had witnesses who would testify that Ortiz did have 

personal knowledge of the conversation even if Ortiz denied it. 

The court then permitted the prosecutor to call Ortiz herself as 

a witness. When she denied the conversation, it permitted the 

prosecutor to call the two witnesses (Zepeda and Palomares) 

who, the prosecutor represented, would supply the missing 

evidence. The two witnesses testified from personal knowledge, 

although not in the way the prosecutor anticipated. If, as 

anticipated, the two witnesses had testified that Ortiz told them 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

68

she heard the conversation, the evidence would have been 

admissible. The statements from defendant to Ermanda would 

have come within the exception to the hearsay rule for 

statements of a party. Ortiz’s statements to Zepeda and 

Palomares would have come within the exception to the hearsay 

rule for prior inconsistent statements. (Evid. Code, §§ 1201, 

1220, 1235; see People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 403.) 

When it turned out that the witnesses did not establish that 

Ortiz spoke from personal knowledge, the court struck the 

testimony and admonished the jury. (See Evid. Code, § 403, 

subd. (c)(2) [the court “[s]hall instruct the jury to disregard the 

proffered evidence if the court subsequently determines that a 

jury could not reasonably find that the preliminary fact [Ortiz’s 

personal knowledge] exists”].)

Defendant relies primarily on People v. Valencia (2006) 

146 Cal.App.4th 92. In Valencia, a conviction of sexual crimes 

was based partly on hearsay statements of a person who had 

“consistently and repeated stated” that she “lacked personal 

knowledge” of the charged crimes. (Id. at p. 104.) It appears 

that no effort was made to show that the declarant did, indeed, 

have personal knowledge, and the evidence was admitted 

without objection. The Court of Appeal found defense counsel 

ineffective for not objecting to the hearsay testimony. “In the 

absence of personal knowledge, a witness’s testimony or a 

declarant’s statement is no better than rank hearsay or, even 

worse, pure speculation.” (Id. at pp. 103-104.) This case is 

entirely different. Here, based on the prosecutor’s 

representation, the court did not clearly err in permitting the 

prosecutor to try to establish the requisite personal knowledge. 

When the testimony differed from what was expected, the court 

struck the testimony. In contrast to Valencia, where the jury 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

69

was permitted to consider the inadmissible hearsay, here the 

court instructed the jury not to consider it.

In any event, no prejudice actually resulted. “[T]he court 

firmly instructed the jury to disregard the testimony, and we 

presume the jury did so.” (People v. Melendez (2016) 2 Cal.5th 

1, 33.) Defendant contends the admonitions were inadequate. 

We disagree. The admonitions were squarely on point and 

clearly instructed the jury on its duty. Indeed, the court took 

the extraordinary step of polling the jurors individually to 

ensure that each understood and would follow the admonition.

To the extent defendant contends the court erred in not 

granting the mistrial motion after Zepeda stated that Ortiz had 

been “told by Ermanda,” we disagree. We review the denial of a 

mistrial motion for abuse of discretion. (People v. Rices (2017) 4 

Cal.5th 49, 92.) “A court should grant a mistrial motion based 

on a witness’s statement if it judges the defendant has been 

prejudiced in a way that an admonition or instruction cannot 

cure. Because this is inherently a speculative matter, the trial 

court has considerable discretion in ruling on a mistrial motion.” 

(Ibid.) Here, the trial court participated in selecting this 

particular jury, and it knew the jury well. It was confident that 

an admonition would cure any harm. We have no reason to 

disagree or find the court abused its discretion.

Defendant also contends the prosecutor committed 

misconduct in two respects. First, he contends the prosecutor 

committed misconduct in cross-examining him about the 

conversation. “ ‘It is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions 

of a witness that suggest facts harmful to a defendant, absent a 

good faith belief that such facts exist.’ ” (People v. Bolden (2002) 

29 Cal.4th 515, 562.) However, “as long as he had a good faith 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

70

belief in the existence of the preliminary fact [citation], the 

prosecutor was entitled to ask defendant” these questions. 

(People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 467.) Defendant 

contends the prosecutor did not act in good faith. However, after 

holding a hearing, the court found otherwise, and it also found 

that an admonition would cure any harm. “The record supports 

these determinations and we adopt them as our own.” (People 

v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 482.)

The prosecutor stated the source of his belief that Ortiz 

had personal knowledge: a report from Investigator Camarillo. 

Although the report did not say so, Camarillo testified that he 

assumed or understood that Ortiz had personal knowledge of 

the threat, and in conveying the report to the prosecutor he also 

conveyed that understanding. This testimony, along with the 

prosecutor’s representation he expected Zepeda and Palomares 

to testify that Ortiz told them she witnessed the threat, supplied

substantial support for the trial court’s finding of good faith.

While we do not overturn the trial court’s finding, we note 

that the prosecutor knew that Ortiz would likely deny 

knowledge of the threat. Indeed, when she testified, Ortiz 

denied overhearing the threat and even denied telling Zepeda 

and Palomares about it. Thus, the prosecutor knew he would 

have to rely on Zepeda and Palomares to make the testimony 

admissible. But the report of those witnesses’ statements did 

not specifically state that Ortiz had overheard the threat. In 

this circumstance, it would have been prudent for the 

prosecutor, no less than for the court, to verify the threat’s 

admissibility before questioning witnesses about it in front of 

the jury. 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

71

Defendant also contends the prosecutor committed 

misconduct by not admonishing the witnesses before calling 

them. Defendant appears to focus on Zepeda’s statement that 

Ortiz “was told by Ermanda.” “A prosecutor has the duty to 

guard against statements by his witnesses containing 

inadmissible evidence. [Citations.] If the prosecutor believes a 

witness may give an inadmissible answer during his 

examination, he must warn the witness to refrain from making 

such a statement.” (People v. Warren, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 

481-482.) Defendant did not object on this basis at trial, thus 

forfeiting the contention. (People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 

1370, 1406.) Because defendant did not object, the record does 

not indicate whether the prosecutor had reason to believe any 

witness would state something inadmissible, or whether he did 

or did not admonish the witnesses. (Ibid.) The record does 

reflect that the prosecutor requested and was given permission 

to ask leading questions to minimize the risk of eliciting 

inadmissible evidence. The prosecutor also stated his intention 

not to elicit the source of the statements for the time being. He 

asked Zepeda a yes or no question designed not to elicit the 

inadmissible statement that the witness, nonetheless, blurted 

out. In any event, as we have explained, the court’s admonitions 

sufficed to prevent prejudice.

Something similar occurred in People v. Melendez, supra, 

2 Cal.5th at pages 31-33. There, the prosecution presented 

evidence that a witness had been injured in a criminal assault. 

The circumstances in which the evidence was presented implied 

that the defendant had committed the crime. But anticipated 

evidence connecting the defendant to the crime never 

materialized, and the trial court had to admonish the jury to 

disregard the testimony. We found no error and, given the 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

72

admonition, no prejudice. We further explained that “[w]hat 

occurred here was unfortunate, but it is the sort of event that 

sometimes happens in a trial. . . . Witnesses sometimes blurt 

things out or . . . testify in unanticipated ways. We have to trust 

the trial court to take corrective measures when necessary, as 

the court here did, and the jury to follow the court’s instructions. 

It would be easy for the jury to understand that no evidence was 

ever introduced to show that defendant was responsible for the 

witness’s injury, and therefore it had to disregard her testimony. 

We have no basis even to speculate that the jury based its 

verdict on the stricken testimony rather than the evidence it 

properly heard.” (Id. at p. 33.)

The same is true here. The jury could easily understand 

that the stricken testimony was, as the court repeatedly stated, 

“unreliable,” and the jury had to disregard it. As in People v. 

Melendez, supra, 2 Cal.5th 1, we find neither error nor prejudice

in Zepeda’s unexpected testimony. 

7. Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct During the 

Closing Argument

Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct 

during his guilt phase closing argument to the jury.

The prosecutor argued: “[T]hat’s where Ermanda got 

killed, outside her daughter’s door, watching, most likely, her 

daughter dying. She has one other child in the house, and she 

gets to her bedroom where that child is and she gets on the 

phone. The defendant goes in there and she’s not even able to 

call the police. She died not knowing if her youngest was going 

to make it, but knowing her oldest hadn’t.”

Defendant objected to the argument outside the jury’s 

presence on the ground that the prosecutor was “prejudicing and 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

73

trying to inflame the jury.” The court found no misconduct but 

stated that “if there is a pattern that is established, then the 

court will deal with it appropriately. Prosecutor is on notice of 

the defense’s objection. There is a . . . line between what is 

argument and inflaming. I’m not ruling the prosecutor has 

reached the point of inflammatory argument. Defense [counsel] 

has put her concern on record, and the court will continue to 

listen to the argument and, if there’s a further objection, I’ll 

consider it.” The prosecutor then turned to other matters in his 

jury argument and did not return to this theme.

Defendant argues that the prosecutor committed 

misconduct by “by inviting the jury to imagine [Ermanda’s] last 

thoughts.” We have repeatedly stated that it is “ ‘improper to 

make arguments to the jury that give it the impression that 

“emotion may reign over reason,” and to present “irrelevant 

information or inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury’s 

attention from its proper role, or invites an irrational, purely 

subjective response.” ’ ” (People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 

742.) More specifically, we have said that “[i]n the guilt phase 

of a trial, it is misconduct to appeal to the jury to view the crime 

through the eyes of the victim.” (People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 

Cal.4th 686, 704; see People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 

1057 [similar].)

Here, the prosecutor only indirectly suggested that the 

jury should view the crime through Ermanda’s eyes. 

Nevertheless, the comment was irrelevant to defendant’s guilt 

and, for that reason, should not have been made. However, as 

in both Mendoza and Stansbury, any impropriety was not 

prejudicial. The comment was brief and made during a long and 

otherwise unobjectionable jury argument. (See People v. 

Stansbury, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 1057.) When admonished by 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

74

the court, the prosecutor “did not return to the point.” (People 

v. Mendoza, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 704.) We find no reasonable 

probability the jury would have reached a different verdict 

absent the comment. (Stansbury, at p. 1057.)

Defendant also argues that “the prosecutor improperly 

argued matters outside the record and became an unsworn 

witness.” He did not object “on this basis, and therefore has 

forfeited this claim.” (People v. Redd, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 

743.) The contention also lacks merit. The comment was clearly 

based on the evidence presented at trial. As the evidence 

strongly supported the comment, no reason existed for the jury 

to believe otherwise.

B. Issue Regarding Penalty

Defendant contends the court erred in admitting evidence 

in aggravation under Penal Code section 190.3, factor (b), that 

defendant committed a crime involving force or violence against 

his stepdaughter, Tammy Lucio (Tammy). He contends the 

evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to find he committed 

such a crime.

At a hearing outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel 

requested an offer of proof regarding any crime committed 

against Tammy. The prosecutor responded that Tammy “had 

stated that [defendant] has hit her on the head previously.” 

When defense counsel said, “Tapped her on the head,” the 

prosecutor reiterated that Tammy had said defendant hit her on 

the head, although “she minimized it later on after saying that.” 

Defense counsel stated her belief that Tammy would not 

corroborate anything about assaultive conduct. The court 

responded, “Then the District Attorney loses and anytime a 

party puts on evidence and it falls way short of what you contend 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

75

it is, it doesn’t really help their position.” The court ruled it was 

for the jury to determine whether it was just a tap in the head 

or a battery.

Thereafter, Tammy testified. She generally said 

defendant never assaulted her. She said he merely gave her a 

“gentle tap on the top of my head.” She added that it was “never 

a striking blow. He’s never hit me in my life.” Additionally, she 

testified that defendant “treated me very good. He’s always 

treated me with respect and he’s showed me how to be a lady.” 

She said that she responded, “hm-hmm” when an investigator 

asked her if it was more than “a striking blow,” but she was not 

trying to tell the investigator that defendant hit her hard.

After the presentation of evidence, defendant asked the 

court to rule that the evidence was insufficient to support a 

finding of assaultive conduct. The court denied the request. It 

instructed the jury that the evidence of other crimes it could 

consider included “striking Tammy Lucio in the head, a 

violation of Penal Code section 242, a battery,” and it defined 

the crime of battery. It also instructed that a juror could not 

consider the crime unless that juror first found defendant 

committed it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant argues Tammy’s testimony presented 

insufficient evidence for a juror to conclude beyond a reasonable 

doubt that defendant committed a criminal battery against her. 

“Because the question concerns the admissibility of evidence, it

also comes within the trial court’s discretion.” (People v. 

Rodriguez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 636.) Tammy’s trial 

description of what defendant had done did not support a finding 

that he committed a battery. But her earlier apparent 

affirmative response to the investigator’s question whether 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

76

defendant had hit her more than a striking blow, which was 

admissible for its truth as a prior inconsistent statement (Evid. 

Code, § 1235), did support such a finding, albeit just barely. 

Victims of domestic violence sometimes try to minimize the 

events later. The jury could reasonably believe this was one 

such occasion and give more credence to Tammy’s earlier 

statement than to her trial testimony. This evidence of a crime 

was tenuous, but we believe admitting it and letting the jury 

decide came within the trial court’s discretion.

Moreover, we would find any error harmless. As the trial 

court noted, when the evidence falls short of what the party 

presenting it expects, it is not good for that party. Tammy’s 

testimony was generally favorable to defendant. If, as 

defendant contends, her testimony did not warrant a finding 

that he committed a crime against her, it is unlikely the jury 

would have given it much, if any, consideration in aggravation. 

It is far more likely that her testimony helped defendant, 

especially given that she was called as a prosecution witness. 

We find no reasonable possibility the verdict would have been 

different had the court not permitted the jury to consider 

Tammy’s testimony as possible aggravating evidence. (People v. 

Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 960-961.)

C. Cumulative Effect of the Asserted Errors

Defendant contends the cumulative effect of the asserted 

errors was prejudicial. We disagree. Any errors were minimal 

and had no cumulative effect.

D. Challenges to California’s Death Penalty Law

Defendant reiterates numerous challenges to California’s 

death penalty law that we have repeatedly rejected. We adhere 

to our previous decisions.
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

77

Penal Code sections 190.2 and 190.3 are not impermissibly 

broad, and Penal Code section 190.3, factor (a), does not make 

imposition of the death penalty arbitrary and capricious. 

(People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 997.) “Except for 

evidence of other crimes and prior convictions, jurors need not 

find aggravating factors true beyond a reasonable doubt; no 

instruction on burden of proof is needed; the jury need not 

achieve unanimity except for the verdict itself; and written 

findings are not required.” (Ibid.) “CALJIC No. 8.88’s use of the 

words ‘so substantial,’ its use of the word ‘warrants’ instead of 

‘appropriate,’ its failure to instruct the jury that a sentence of 

life is mandatory if mitigation outweighs aggravation, and its 

failure to instruct the jury on a ‘presumption of life’ does not 

render the instruction invalid.” (People v. Rountree (2013) 56 

Cal.4th 823, 862-863.) Penal Code “[s]ection 190.3’s use of 

adjectives such as ‘extreme’ and ‘substantial’ in describing 

mitigating circumstances does not impermissibly limit the jury’s 

consideration of mitigating factors.” (Id. at p. 863.) “The court 

need not delete inapplicable sentencing factors . . . .” (Ibid.) 

“Intercase proportionality review is not required.” (People v. 

Livingston, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1180.) “The California death 

penalty scheme does not violate equal protection by treating 

capital and noncapital defendants differently.” (Ibid.) “Use of 

the death penalty does not violate international law and is not 

unconstitutional.” (Ibid.)

“Defendant also argues that the recent high court decision 

of Hurst v. Florida (2016) 577 U.S. __ [193 L.Ed.2d 504, 136 

S.Ct. 616], which invalidated Florida’s sentencing scheme, also 

invalidates California’s. It does not. (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 

Cal.4th 1192, 1235 & fn. 16.) ‘The California sentencing scheme 
PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

78

is materially different from that in Florida.’ (Id. at p. 1235, fn. 

16.)” (People v. Becerrada (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1009, 1038.)

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment.

CHIN, J.

We Concur:

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

CORRIGAN, J.

LIU, J.

CUÉLLAR, J.

KRUGER, J.

GROBAN, J.
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion People v. Sanchez

__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal XXX

Original Proceeding

Review Granted

Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No. S087569

Date Filed: April 29, 2019

__________________________________________________________________________________

Court: Superior

County: Tulare

Judge: Gerald F. Sevier

__________________________________________________________________________________

Counsel:

Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Nina Wilder, 

Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, 

Kenneth N. Sokoler, Rebecca Whitfield and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Nina Wilder

Deputy State Public Defender

1111 Broadway, 10th Floor

Oakland, CA 94607

(510) 267-3300

Angelo S. Edralin

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

(916) 445-9555