People v. Sun CA4/3

Filed 3/29/22 P. v. Sun CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059629

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15HF0776)

HONGLI SUN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Hongli Sun was convicted of first degree murder for killing his wife’s paramour, Xuan Liu. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred by refusing to give his proposed pinpoint instruction on the prosecution’s lying-in-wait theory. In addition, he argues the verdict is tainted because the jury was not required to unanimously agree on whether he was guilty under that theory, or the alternative theory of premeditation. Finding these claims unavailing, we affirm the judgment. FACTS Appellant and his wife Huaying “Cynthia” Chen immigrated to Orange County from Asia with their infant son in 2008. After they selected Liu as their family dentist, he hired Cynthia to work as a receptionist at his office in Irvine. Then he and Cynthia began an affair that appellant found out about in September 2014. For the most part, appellant blamed the affair on Liu, thinking he had used his power and wealth to seduce and take advantage of Cynthia. Appellant was also angry with Cynthia but he did not give up on their relationship. In fact, even after filing for divorce in the fall of 2014, he tried to reconcile with Cynthia several times over the next few months. However, every time they got back together, she ended up going back to Liu, leaving appellant feeling betrayed and bitter. This pattern played out in July of 2015, just before Liu was killed. At that time, appellant and Cynthia were living with Cynthia’s parents in Irvine, and Cynthia had just started a new job in Newport Beach. Although appellant suspected she still had feelings for Liu, he had no proof they were actually seeing each other so he stayed the course in the hope that she was over Liu once and for all. As it turned out, that was not the case. When appellant woke up on the morning of Saturday, July 18, Cynthia’s parents told him she was at work. Appellant was doubtful Cynthia’s new job required her to work on weekends, and, suspecting the worst, he drove to Liu’s office. There he saw Cynthia’s car in the parking lot. He also discovered a note on the office door in Cynthia’s handwriting. The note said Liu’s staff