People v. Khamo CA4/1

Filed 8/6/24 P. v. Khamo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082469

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE413435)

CHASSAQ GEORGE KHAMO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found Chassaq George Khamo guilty of assault (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(2)(A)). Khamo contends on appeal that the trial court prejudicially erred because it failed to instruct the jury that the victim, H.T., was testifying under a grant of immunity. We disagree and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND One evening in 2022, H.T. sat in his truck and shot pellets at pigeons perched on an electrical wire. Khamo, who had been feeding the pigeons for years, approached H.T.’s truck with another man, S.M., to confront H.T. Using a bicycle chain with a lock on it, Khamo broke the truck’s passenger window while S.M. smashed the driver’s side window. H.T. got out of his truck holding a club or stick and the three men brawled. During the fight, H.T. suffered a concussion and a broken leg. The People charged both Khamo and S.M. with assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(2)(A)), and other charges that were later dismissed. The prosecution filed a request for an order compelling privileged testimony from H.T. pursuant to section 1324, which in relevant part, prohibits the People from using the compelled testimony against the witness in a subsequent criminal case unless the prosecution is based on “perjury, false swearing or contempt” in connection with the order. (§ 1324.) After discussing the request with the parties at a pre-trial hearing, the court granted the prosecution’s request and ordered that H.T. testify under the immunity conditions described in section 1324. H.T. testified about the incident at trial, and he was cross-examined by Khamo’s attorney. At no point during H.T.’s testimony did anyone mention or introduce evidence of his section 1324 immunity.