Vang

People v. Vang

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 282·185 Cal. App. 4th 309
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 25, 2010D054343, D054636California10,151 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.—

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the court erred in admitting the gang expert's opinion regarding defendants' knowledge and intent in committing the underlying assault over defense objections that the testimony exceeded the limits set forth in People v. Killebrew (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 644 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 876 ] ( Killebrew ). One or more defendants also raise evidentiary issues, dispute the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts, ask that we review the police officer personnel records viewed in camera by the trial court pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ] ( Pitchess ), challenge a probation condition, and assert that any failure to make timely and specific objections or motions should be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that the court erred in admitting expert opinion on defendants' knowledge and intent in response to two hypothetical questions, but the error was harmless. We modify item 12G of the probation order for one defendant as agreed by the parties, and affirm the judgment as modified.

Police arrested Xue Vang, Sunny Sitthideth, Dang Ha and Danny Lê…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.