State Of Washington v. Cu Van Truong ( 2015 )

: nc~-
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON £»
cz>
DIVISION ONE ^
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 70811-2-1 ro
Respondent,
co
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION en
CU VAN TRUONG,
Appellant. FILED: April 27, 2015
Schindler, J. — Cu Van Truong appeals his jury conviction for murder in the first
degree while armed with a firearm. Truong contends prosecutorial misconduct during
closing argument deprived him of a fair trial. In the alternative, Truong argues defense
counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the misconduct. Because Truong fails to
show prosecutorial misconduct, we affirm.
FACTS
From November 19 until December 22, 2011, Jason Saechao was in jail for a
probation violation stemming from a domestic violence incident involving llyan Vang.
Saechao and Vang had been involved in a relationship for approximately eight years and
had a four-year-old daughter. Saechao was often physically and emotionally abusive to
Vang.
70811-2-1/2
While Saechao was in jail, Vang had sex with Cu Van Truong and Huang "Wayne"
Duong. Vang characterized her relationship with Truong as a one-night stand. But Vang
said she believed she was in the beginning of a relationship with Duong. Saechao and
Duong were friends.
After Saechao was released from jail, Vang told him she had sex with Truong and
Duong and she wanted to end their relationship. Saechao told Duong he wanted "some
sort of compensation" from him for having sex with Vang. Saechao suggested Duong
give him money. Duong offered to give Saechao his tax refund when he received it. In
the meantime, Duong said he gave Saechao an expensive jade necklace as collateral.
On December 27, Vang spent the early evening smoking methamphetamine with
her friend Karla Diocales. Vang and Diocales met Duong and Truong at a restaurant for
dinner. Vang contacted a "connection" to help Truong get some methamphetamine.
After about an hour, Vang and Truong left the restaurant. Truong drove to Alki Beach.
Vang said Truong pointed out a house under construction and told her the house was
"going to be the house [Vang] and [her] daughter and [Truong] will be living at." Vang
thought his remark was confusing because she and Truong were not dating and had
never discussed being in a relationship.
After Truong drove to a casino to gamble, Vang called Diocales to come and get
her. Before leaving the casino, Vang told Truong to meet her later at Seattle Roll Bakery
if he was still interested in obtaining some methamphetamine. Duong worked nights at
Seattle Roll Bakery. Vang frequently got together with her friends and Duong at the
bakery at night to smoke methamphetamine and hang out.
70811-2-1/3
When Vang and Diocales arrived at the bakery, Duong unlocked the door. Duong
began preparing loaves of bread for baking while Vang and Diocales smoked
methamphetamine. Sometime thereafter, Saechao came to the bakery looking for Vang.
Saechao was irritated with Vang because he had been trying to reach her to obtain the
name of a "connection" and she was not answering her phone.
After Truong arrived at the bakery, Vang heard Truong and Saechao arguing.
Truong told Saechao, "I heard you were trying to set me up." Saechao responded that "if
I was trying to set you up it would have been done already." Truong asked Saechao
about Duong's jade necklace, saying, "[D]id you take my little homie's necklace?" Truong
demanded Saechao give the necklace back to Duong. Saechao insisted he had not
taken the necklace and Duong had given it to him. Duong told Truong to "leave it alone."
But Truong insisted Saechao give the necklace back to Duong. After Saechao said,
"[W]hat are you going to do about it," Truong pulled a handgun out of his waistband and
shot Saechao four times. The first shot hit Saechao in the leg. The second and third
shots hit Saechao in his midsection. Truong then said, "[F]uck it," and "took the gun and
pointed straight down in the middle of [Saechao's] head and shot him." Waving the gun
around, Truong told Vang, Duong, and Diocales he would "come back" if they said
anything, and then fled.
Duong called 911. Duong reported an unknown assailant shot Saechao during an
attempted robbery. Diocales, who had "[a] lot of other cases going on," told Vang, "I can't
be here so don't tell the police that I was here or anything," and left.
Detectives took witness statements from Duong and Vang. Because Duong was
afraid that Truong would retaliate against him or his family, he told the detectives that "it
70811-2-1/4
was some random person that, you know, seen me counting money or whatever." Duong
later admitted that he "just completely told [the detectives] a fib" and that Truong was the
shooter. Vang initially said it was a robbery but then agreed to tell the detectives the
truth, and identified Truong as the shooter.
The police arrested Truong. Truong told police he "didn't do anything." During the
interview with detectives, Truong repeatedly denied being at the bakery the previous
night.
After being booked into jail, Truong called Vang. Truong told Vang he did not see
her after she left the casino. Truong said he did not know what was going on and asked
Vang to come visit him. Vang refused and hung up.
During the investigation, forensic testing established Saechao's blood was on
Truong's sweatshirt. Before the trial began, Truong claimed he had acted in self-
defense.
Vang, Duong, and Diocales testified Saechao did not have a gun and did not
threaten Truong. All three admitted to being addicted to methamphetamine and having a
criminal history involving crimes of dishonesty.
A medical examiner testified the first three shots to Saechao were not lethal, but
the final shot to the head was a contact shot that would have caused nearly
instantaneous death. A firearms expert from the Washington State Patrol Crime
Laboratory testified that the entry wound in Saechao's head showed a "stippling pattern"
and "laceration marks . . . consistent with a contact shot" at very close range.
Truong testified that an angry Saechao approached him as soon as he arrived at
the bakery and demanded Truong give him his diamond earrings and money. Truong
70811-2-1/5
said he refused and walked away. Truong testified Saechao followed him, "still yapping
his mouth," and told Truong to "give him the stuff or he's going to cap my ass." Truong
said that as he "turned halfway around," he saw Saechao reach for his waistband.
Truong said that when he first met Saechao a couple of months earlier, Saechao
had "pulled out a gun" and pointed it at him. Truong testified that this incident, coupled
with what Vang had told him about Saechao's physical abuse of her, made him fear for
his life. Truong testified that he grabbed his own gun and shot Saechao while running
out of the bakery. Truong said he threw the gun in a dumpster and went to a friend's
house. Truong admitted he lied to the police when he told them he had not been at the
bakery that night.
The jury convicted Truong of murder in the first degree while armed with a firearm.
ANALYSIS
Truong seeks reversal of his conviction on the grounds that prosecutorial
misconduct during closing argument deprived him of the right to a fair trial. In the
alternative, Truong argues his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by
failing to object to the misconduct.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Prosecutorial misconduct may deprive a defendant of his right to a fair trial. State
v. Davenport, 100 Wash. 2d 757, 762, 675 P.2d 1213 (1984). To prevail on a claim of
prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must establish that the conduct was both improper
and prejudicial. State v. Fisher. 165 Wash. 2d 727, 747, 202 P.3d 937 (2009).
Misconduct is prejudicial where there is a substantial likelihood the improper
conduct affected the jury's verdict. State v. Yates. 161 Wash. 2d 714, 774, 168 P.3d 359
70811-2-1/6
(2007). But where, as here, defense counsel fails to object, any error is waived unless
the conduct was so "flagrant and ill-intentioned that it evinces an enduring and resulting
prejudice that could not have been neutralized by admonition to the jury." State v.
Stenson, 132 Wash. 2d 668, 719, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997).
Proper and timely objections provide the trial court an opportunity to correct
the misconduct and caution jurors to disregard it. It prevents abuse of the
appellate process and saves the substantial time and expense of a new
trial.
State v. Walker, Wn.2d , 341 P.3d 976, 984 (2015) (citing State v. Emery. 174
Wash. 2d 741, 761-62, 278 P.3d 653 (2012)). In determining whether there was prejudice
that could have been neutralized by an instruction to the jury, we focus less on whether
the misconduct was flagrant or ill-intentioned and more on whether any misconduct could
have been obviated by a curative instruction. Emery, 174 Wash. 2d at 762.
The defendant bears the burden of establishing remarks made during closing
argument were improper as well as their prejudicial effect. State v. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d
24, 85, 882 P.2d 747 (1994). Even if improper, remarks by the prosecutor are not
grounds for reversal "if they were invited or provoked by defense counsel and are in reply
to his or her acts and statements, unless the remarks are not a pertinent reply or are so
prejudicial that a curative instruction would be ineffective." Russell, 125 Wash. 2d at 86.
We review the allegedly improper comments in the context of the entire closing
argument, the issues presented, the evidence addressed, and the instructions given to
the jury. Russell, 125 Wash. 2d at 85-86.
Truong claims the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of Vang and
Duong by arguing that "the only thing we told them was come in here and tell the truth.
. . . And that's exactly what they did." Truong contends the prosecutor "declared Vang
70811-2-1/7
and Duong told the truth, not because the evidence supported that conclusion, but
because they had been instructed to do so by the prosecutors." The record does not
support his argument.
It is improper for a prosecutor to vouch for the credibility of a witness because the
trier of fact has sole authority to assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Ish, 170
Wash. 2d 189, 196, 241 P.3d 389 (2010).
Vouching may occur in two ways: the prosecution may place the prestige
of the government behind the witness or may indicate that information not
presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony.
State v. Allen. 161 Wash. App. 727, 746, 255 P.3d 784 (2011).
However, a prosecutor has wide latitude to draw reasonable inferences from the
evidence. Stenson, 132 Wash. 2d at 727. Accordingly, it is not misconduct for a prosecutor
to argue that a witness is truthful based on inferences from the evidence. State v. Rivers,
96 Wash. App. 672, 674-75, 981 P.2d 16 (1999). " 'Prejudicial error does not occur until
such time as it is clear and unmistakable that counsel is not arguing an inference from
the evidence, but is expressing a personal opinion.'" State v. McKenzie, 157 Wash. 2d 44,
54, 134 P.3d 221 (2006)1 (quoting State v. Papadopoulos, 34 Wash. App. 397, 400, 662
P.2d59(1983)).
The prosecutor's remarks as to Vang did not constitute vouching because they
were based on the evidence. Defense counsel questioned Vang at trial about meetings
with the prosecutor and the documents she had been given to review prior to testifying.
In response to the prosecutor's questions on redirect, Vang testified that the prosecutor
did not go over her testimony with her and did not give her copies of reports, witness
1 Emphasis omitted.
70811-2-1/8
statements, or transcripts other than her own. Vang testified that the prosecutor told her
only "just to be honest." As to Duong and Diocales, the prosecutor questioned them
about whether they had conferred with each other about their testimony.
Further, when viewed in context, it is clear that the prosecutor was not expressing
a personal belief that Duong and Diocales had testified truthfully. The prosecutor stated,
in pertinent part:
You heard from the three witnesses, whose lives are forever changed by
Cu Truong. We told you in opening that you would hear from a group of
young people who were [flawed] and you did. Ms. Vang was in jail. Ms.
Diocales had just gotten out of court ordered treatment. Mr. Duong came.
Stayed clean for three days waiting for his turn to testify. And they told you
what happened that day.
I have no doubt that in closing defense will point out to you what they
believe are some inconsistencies between these witness's testimony. But
loud and clear each witness told detectives, told us in interviews, and told
you in trial multiple times there was never any physical confrontation
between Jason Saechao and Cu Truong. Jason Saechao never threatened
to kill or cap Cu Truong. Jason Saechao didn't have a gun. He didn't
display a gun, and he didn't fire a gun that day.
You know, there are moments in every trial when you get the purest
of purest glimpses into that human element. It can't be practiced, and it
can't be rehearsed. We didn't sit down with these witnesses and practice
their direct testimony. We didn't show them anything, other than their own
transcripts. And the only thing we told them was come in here and tell the
truth. Admit you are a meth addict. Admit you were smoking meth that
day. And admit your initial story to the cops wasn't true. Ms. Diocales,
admit that you cowardly ran off and left your friends there to deal with the
cops. But tell this jury exactly what happened, and don't hide from
anything. And that's exactly what they did. And you see in those human
moments they are not proud that they were smoking meth. They are not
proud that they were out looking for drugs. And they were certainly beyond
question traumatized by what they saw. Tears. Shaken up.
Ms. Vang, I wish, I so wish that when Cu called me from jail I wish I
could have asked him why. You know why she wants to ask why?
Because there's no good reason for what Cu Truong did that day. Mr.
Duong. No, counsel, I'm not high. I'm not sitting here high. Yeah, I'm
nervous. Because for the first time I'm looking at the man that shot my
friend. Human moments where you get to see a demeanor, and an
honesty, and a rawness that can't be rehearsed, and can't be practiced,
8
70811-2-1/9
and tells you that these people came in here and told you exactly what
happened that day.[21
Nonetheless, even if the remark was improper, Truong does not demonstrate that a
timely instruction would not have cured any prejudice.
The case Truong relies on, jsh, is distinguishable. In ]sh, the court held the State
vouched for a witness's credibility by asking about a plea deal that required the witness to
"testify truthfully." Jsh, 170 Wash. 2d at 198-99. The court concluded this was misconduct
because "such testimony suggests that the witness might have been compelled to tell the
truth by the prosecutor's threats and the State's promises." ]sh, 170 Wash. 2d at 197-99.
However, the court did not "have any difficulty concluding that the error. . . was
harmless" because other evidence corroborated the witness's testimony and the State
did not dwell on the issue, jsh, 170 Wash. 2d at 200-01.
Next, Truong contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that
Truong hoped "maybe the jury won't care" about Saechao, but "[w]e know [TruongJ's
wrong." Truong argues the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jury by suggesting
"that an acquittal would indicate that the jury, like Truong, did not care about Jason
Saechao." Truong also argues the remark, "We know [TruongJ's wrong," defined "a
group of caring people that included the prosecutor and the jury but excluded Truong."
A prosecutor may not make comments designed to appeal to the passion and
prejudice of the jury or to encourage a verdict based on emotion rather than evidence.
State v. Belqarde, 110 Wash. 2d 504, 507-08, 755 P.2d 174 (1988). Likewise, a prosecutor
2 Emphasis added.
70811-2-1/10
must refrain from making comments "calculated to align the jury with the prosecutor and
against the [accused]." State v. Reed, 102 Wash. 2d 140, 147-48, 684 P.2d 699 (1984).
The record shows the prosecutor did not encourage the jury to convict Truong
based on passion and prejudice by making the remark, "[M]aybe the jury won't care."
The prosecutor argued that because Truong portrayed Saechao as an abusive
methamphetamine addict who "was in and out of jail[,] [t]hat's what they want you to filter
all of this evidence through." The prosecutor told the jury that it had a responsibility to put
aside any such bias and determine whether Truong killed Saechao in self-defense.
We also conclude the statement "[w]e know [TruongJ's wrong" was not an
improper attempt to align the jury with the State but, rather, a rhetorical device the
prosecutor used before describing the evidence showing Truong's claim of self-defense
was not credible.
And the other, oft repeated, I submit rehearsed response, I was
scared for my life. Couple of human moments that Mr. Truong couldn't
avoid. From what I've learned of Jason, I was scared of my life. From what
you've learned of Jason, since the time you shot him? And from what
you've learned of Jason that you know the jury will hear? And you hope,
you just hope that maybe the jury won't care either. And he's wrong. We
know he's wrong.
See, Jason Saechao never pulled a gun on him. Because if Jason
Saechao had pulled a gun on him in October or November, then why,
knowing that Jason Saechao was at that bakery, would he number one
come to the bakery, and arm himself with a firearm? Well, because he
wanted to kill Jason. But more importantly, walk around that bakery as
Jason's yapping his mouth, and turn his back on Jason how many times,
before he pulled out his gun and finished Jason Saechao's life.[3]
Last, Truong argues that during rebuttal, the prosecutor improperly told the jury the
forensic evidence establishing Truong purposefully shot Saechao in the head "is about
3 Emphasis added.
10
70811-2-1/11
the best evidence you are going to get." Truong argues this statement "implies a wealth
of experience of other cases in which defendants have been found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt and suggests to the jury that there could be no better evidence on
which to convict." We disagree.
A prosecutor may argue evidence does not support a defense theory and present
a fair response to defense counsel's arguments. Russell. 125 Wash. 2d at 87. The
prosecutor did not referto other cases. Instead, the prosecutor's remarks were made in
response to defense counsel's argumentthat Truong accidentally shot Saechao in the
head at point-blank range because Saechao collapsed and fell forward as Truong
brushed past him to flee out the door. The prosecutor pointed to the testimony of the
medical examiner and the firearms expert that there was "perfect evidence of a contact
wound" to demonstrate Truong "intend[ed] to kill Jason Saechao and nothing less." The
prosecutor argued thatthe forensic evidence and the nature of the wounds showed
Truong was not firing randomly or in fear when he shot Saechao.
Truong contends that even if none of the alleged remarks alone warrant reversal,
the cumulative effect of the remarks denied him a fair trial. The cumulative effect of
multiple or repeated incidents of prosecutorial misconduct may be so prejudicial as to
warrant reversal, even if individual instances standing alone would not. State v. Weber,
159 Wash. 2d 252, 279, 149 P.3d 646 (2006). Here, there were not multiple or repeated
incidents of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In the alternative, Truong contends his attorney provided ineffective assistance of
counsel by failing to object to the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument. To
11
70811-2-1/12
establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel's
performance was deficient and that the performance prejudiced the defendant's case.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
Deficient performance is shown if counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Stenson, 132 Wash. 2d at 705-06. To satisfy the prejudice prong, a
defendant must show a "reasonable probability that, except for counsel's unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. McFarland, 127
Wash. 2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).
There is a strong presumption that counsel provided effective assistance. State v.
Tilton, 149 Wash. 2d 775, 784, 72 P.3d 735 (2003). To rebut this presumption, a defendant
bears the burden of establishing the absence of any " 'conceivable legitimate tactic
explaining counsel's performance.'" State v. Grier, 171 Wash. 2d 17, 33, 246 P.3d 1260
(2011) (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153Wn.2d 126, 130, 101 P.3d 80 (2004)).
Here, Truong has not shown that defense counsel did not have any conceivable
and legitimate reason not to object or that if his attorney had objected to the three
remarks during closing argument, the result of the trial would have been different.
Additional Grounds for Review
In a statement of additional grounds for review, Truong cites several other
instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Truong contends
the prosecutor improperly expressed a personal opinion by arguing that Truong exhibited
no remorse or emotion over killing Saechao. Truong is incorrect. The prosecutor was
not expressing a personal opinion. Rather, the prosecutorwas arguing Truong's claim of
self-defense was not credible based on the evidence.
12
70811-2-1/13
Truong also asserts it was misconduct for the prosecutor to argue Truong "thought
he could pull one over on you guys." However, "[w]here a prosecutor shows that other
evidence contradicts a defendant's testimony, the prosecutor may argue that the
defendant is lying." McKenzie, 157 Wash. 2d at 59.4
Truong also contends the trial court violated his right to free exercise of religion
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by requiring him to "swear"
or "affirm" before testifying instead of using his own oath. To demonstrate a First
Amendment violation, an individual must demonstrate that he holds a sincere religious
belief and that the government excessively burdens that belief. Munns v. Martin, 131
Wash. 2d 192, 199-200, 930 P.2d 318 (1997). Truong fails to make this showing.
We affirm the jury's conviction of Truong for murder in the first degree while armed
with a firearm.
VjjMV-f:0&.
WE CONCUR:
£ r V
v •%
4 Truong's remaining challenges to remarks made by the prosecutor lack reasoned argument or
citation to relevant authority and do not merit review.
13