Trinh

People v. Dung Dinh Anh Trinh

Bad Law
173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1·2014 Cal. LEXIS 3763·59 Cal. 4th 216·2014 WL 2535253·326 P.3d 939
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 5, 2014S115284California32,437 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Liu, J.

Concurring. — The court properly rejects defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s strike of Prospective Juror N.V. was motivated by discriminatory *256 intent. (See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] (Batson).) I reach this conclusion based on an independent review of the record; as explained below, deference to the trial court’s ruling is not appropriate in this case.

As today’s opinion explains, the prosecutor gave credible, race-neutral reasons for dismissing N.V. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 241-244.) However, in denying defendant’s Batson motion, the trial court relied not only on the prosecutor’s stated reasons but also on its own assumption that it was “suspicious” and “very odd” for a person of Vietnamese descent not to have taken a special interest in a murder case involving a Vietnamese defendant. Clearly, that type of explanation for striking prospective jurors, which is based on “assumptions . . . which arise solely from the jurors’ race,” would be impermissible if proffered by the prosecutor. (Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98 ; see, e.g., Kesser v. Cambra (9th Cir. 2006) 465 F.3d 351, 362 (en banc) (lead opn. of Bybee, J.) [Native…

Lead Opinion

Werdegar, J.

A jury convicted defendant Dung Dinh Anh Trinh (Trinh) of three counts of first degree murder with a multiple-murder special circumstance, one count of attempted murder, and various firearm enhancements for the shootings and attempted shooting of four staff members at an Anaheim hospital. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, 190.2, subd. (a)(3), 664.) 1 Trinh’s first two penalty trials resulted in hung juries, but the third penalty jury returned a death verdict. On automatic appeal, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Guilt Phase Trial

1. Prosecution Evidence

On the morning of September 14, 1999, Trinh’s mother Mot Trinh (Mot) died of cardiac arrest. A few hours later, shortly after 10:30 a.m., Trinh entered the West Anaheim Medical Center (West Anaheim), where Mot had been a patient in May and June 1999. He was armed with two .38-caliber handguns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition.

Hospital employees saw Trinh walk down a second-floor hallway and turn in to the office of nursing supervisor Mila Salvador. Salvador was in conversation with a nurse’s aide, Marlene Mustaffa. Trinh shot Mustaffa in the head from a foot away. He then…

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. GUILT PHASE TRIAL

1. Prosecution Evidence On the morning of September 14, 1999, Trinh’s mother, Mot Trinh (Mot) died of cardiac arrest. A few hours later, shortly after 10:30 a.m., Trinh entered the West Anaheim Medical Center (West Anaheim), where Mot had been a patient in May and June 1999. He was armed with two .38-caliber handguns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition. Hospital employees saw Trinh walk down a second-floor hallway and turn into the office of nursing supervisor Mila Salvador. Salvador was in conversation with a nurse’s aide, Marlene Mustaffa. Trinh shot Mustaffa in the head from a foot away. He then pointed a gun at Salvador and fired but missed. Trinh immediately left. Salvador barred the door to her office, attempted to resuscitate Mustaffa, failed, and called 911. The firing of shots triggered a “code gray” announcement over the hospital public address system, a warning that generally signaled the presence of an unruly patient. The announcement directed male personnel to respond immediately to the progressive care unit on the second floor. Andrew Armenta, working on the first floor, saw Vincent Rosetti running toward…

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.