Califronia v. Vang
Annotate this CaseDefendant Joson Vang and his cousin, Ronnie Vang, broke into Keith Fessler's house to steal some property. Fessler was home at the time. When he came out of a back bedroom and confronted the burglars, they beat him, tied him up, and Ronnie executed him with two shots to the back of the head. After taking several items from the house and leaving with these items in Fessler's car, defendant and Ronnie came back and set fire to the house. Defendant and Ronnie were tried together before separate juries. Defendant's jury convicted him of first degree murder, first degree burglary, robbery, arson of an inhabited structure, and the unauthorized taking or driving of a vehicle. With respect to the murder, the jury found the crime was committed during the commission of both a burglary and a robbery. The jury also found a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the murder, burglary, and robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive determinate term of nine years eight months. Defendant appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the arson conviction because Fessler was dead when he and Ronnie set the fire; and (2) the trial court violated the "Aranda/Bruton" rule, and thereby violated defendant's right of cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment by admitting certain out-of-court statements Ronnie made to two individuals that implicated defendant in the charged crimes and defendant conceded were non-testimonial in nature. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded defendant's arson of an inhabited structure conviction had to be modified to convict him of arson of a structure. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court rejected defendant's remaining claim his confrontation rights were violated by the admission of certain statements made by Ronnie because they were of a non-testimonial nature.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.