People v. Tien Minh Vu

California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 1991 No. D010283Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding the effects of stress and expectancy on perception, but the error was harmless because the jury's verdict of attempted voluntary manslaughter indicated they already accepted the defendant's subjective belief in the need for self-defense.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on the effects of stress and expectancy on perception in a self-defense case.
Whether the exclusion of expert testimony regarding perception was prejudicial to the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore conclude Dr. Girsch’s testimony was admissible in this case.”

“the jury’s verdict convinces us that the error did not prejudice defendant.”

“we do not think it is reasonably probable admission of the testimony would have affected the verdict.”

[812]

Opinion

WIENER, Acting P. J.

Charged with the attempted murder of Cong Phan, defendant Tien Minh Vu appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, §§ 192, subd. (a), 664

) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2). Accompanying firearm use (§ 12022.5) and great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) allegations were found to be true. Defendant makes various contentions of instructional, evidentiary and sentencing error. We generally reject his arguments or, if error, conclude it was not prejudicial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

The events in this case arise out of the somewhat volatile relationship between defendant, his girlfriend Hang Nguyen and Nguyen’s husband, Hai Vu (no relationship to the defendant).

Beginning in early 1988, Nguyen began moving back and forth between her husband’s home and defendant’s apartment. The arrangement was not amicable. There was an altercation between defendant and Vu at a Vietnamese market in late June followed by various threats, counterthreats and perceived threats.

On July 20, Vu asked the eventual victim, Cong Phan, to accompany him to defendant’s apartment to pick up Nguyen.

According to Vu, he had arranged with defendant to pick up Nguyen at that time. According to defendant and Nguyen, Vu’s arrival was unexpected. Nguyen did not want to go with Vu but agreed to do so in order to avoid a confrontation. She told defendant to come over to Vu’s apartment later.

After about 15 minutes, defendant went to Vu’s apartment armed with a handgun. When defendant knocked and announced himself, Vu was fearful of a fight and refused to answer the door. Defendant saw Cong Phan talking with friends outside a neighboring apartment and told him to tell Vu to let him in. Phan replied it was defendant’s business, not his. Defendant then asked Phan to accompany him to the alley adjacent to the apartment building so they could talk. As the two men entered the alley, defendant turned, pulled the handgun from his pants pocket and fired a single shot which

People v. Tien Minh Vu

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief