People v. Yang CA1/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 26, 2014A136368California5,557 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

FACTS

The following facts are primarily taken from Yang’s trial testimony, as well as his recorded statements during a police interrogation with Inspector Michael Philpott.1 On May 13, 2008, Yang was sitting in his car in the Bayview-Hunters Point area of San Francisco. He was approached by a man he had seen a few times around the neighborhood who later introduced himself as “Shay.” Shay offered to pay Yang for a ride in his car. The parties dispute whether Yang was aware of the purpose of the ride. Yang initially told Inspector Philpott that “[Shay] said he had a lick for some money.” The term “lick” is slang for robbery. Yang later told Inspector Philpott that Shay did not mention a “lick” or otherwise explain why he needed a ride. At trial, Yang tried to explain the contradiction, stating he initially thought Inspector Philpott was asking about whether he knew of the robbery plan during the interview, not at the time he picked up Shay. Yang also testified that he agreed to drive a stranger because he needed the money. At the time, Yang did not have a job or a home and was living out of his car. Shay gave Yang directions to a Mobility bus in the Lakeview District of San…

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.