California v. Perez
Annotate this CaseA drug dealer identified only as “Max” owed money to a group of other drug dealers for some methamphetamine that had gone missing. He decided to ambush his creditors, tie them up, rob them of any drugs and money they might have, and kill them. Max delegated the actual commission of these planned crimes to at least nine men. The participants carried out the plan, but not flawlessly. One of the victims, although shot in the face and chest, survived, and he was able to provide information that led the police to defendant Jose Perez and to Sabas Iniguez. Perez gave statements to the police incriminating himself. Iniguez testified at trial pursuant to a plea bargain. Defendants were convicted of multiple first degree murders, with special circumstances, as well as other crimes. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held trial counsel forfeited any objection to expert testimony to case-specific hearsay, by failing to raise it at trial. In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court held there was insufficient evidence to support the gang special circumstance. Furthermore, the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the financial-gain special circumstance. Hence, the Court reverse those two special circumstances. The trial court was directed to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, pursuant to newly enacted Senate Bill 620. Otherwise, however, the Court found no prejudicial error.
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.