California v. Xiong
Annotate this CaseDefendant Yor Xiong shot the victim multiple times and then led police on a high-speed car chase on surface streets from south to north Stockton ending across the street from his house. A jury found defendant guilty of: first degree murder (count 1); possession of a firearm by a felon (count 2); and evading an officer with wanton disregard (felony evading) (count 3). The jury also found true an enhancement allegation in connection with count 1 that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death. The jury deadlocked on gang enhancement allegations on counts 1 and 2, and thereafter, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to strike those allegations. Defendant was sentenced to 50 years to life plus two years eight months. Defendant raised a host of alleged errors at trial. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in precluding defendant’s testimony regarding his understanding about what happened to people who denied allegations made by police in the Thai refugee camps where he was born and stayed as a boy. "His cultural experience was relevant to his state of mind in interacting with the detectives who interrogated him and tended to prove why he would have given a false confession." However, given the other evidence defendant was allowed to introduce concerning his confession, the Court concluded defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense by the preclusion of this testimony. Furthermore, the Court determined the erroneous preclusion of this testimony was harmless. In addition, the Court concluded the trial court erred in instructing the jury: the trial court included a sentence from CALCRIM No. 358. Defendant did not want the instruction, even though evidence of oral unrecorded inculpatory statements was admitted. "The trial court had no sua sponte obligation to give the instruction. It is up to a defendant to request the instruction and a defendant is entitled to reject it. However, under the circumstances here, we conclude the error was harmless." In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Court modified judgment by striking the two one-year prior prison term enhancements imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5(b). The matter was remanded for resentencing. As for defendant's other contentions raised on appeal, the Court concluded they were forfeited, meritless and/or nonprejudicial. Judgment was affirmed as modified.
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.