6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/04/16 Morning Session - Apr 16, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/04/16 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 39m 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the case being argued in the People v Essencio oral argument?

Unknown 12:28

All right. The Court of Appeal for the 6th Appell District is now in session. Acting President Justice, the Honorable Adrian M. Grover, Associate Justice, the Honorable Cynthia C. Lee, and Associate Justice, the Honorable Charles E. Will.

Adrian M. Grover 12:40

Good morning. Please be seated. Thank you for your patience waiting for us to get started here, ladies and gentlemen. Uh we do have two matters on calendar this morning and um we're very pleased that all council are present for our arguments. We're also pleased to offer remote appearances uh for various reasons, but we always do like to hear arguments in person, so we appreciate everyone making the effort to be here. Um because we are live streaming and also recording our uh proceedings, I'll go ahead and although we don't have a panel change this morning, I will invite appearances um actually case by case rather than at the commencement of the calendar. So uh I think we are ready to begin. We are connected to our technology here on the bench where we do have briefs and record and uh any

Adrian M. Grover 13:28

information that we need. Um so we'll go ahead and call the first case is people versus Essencio. And um I'll invite a balance appearance, please.

Catherine Carey 13:44

Good morning. Your Honor is Catherine Carey, uh Deputy District Attorney in Santa Clara County on behalf of the people, which is the appellant in this case.

Adrian M. Grover 13:51

Yes, in unusual order for us. It's a thank you very much. Your time estimate?

Catherine Carey 13:56

Um I'd like to do eight minutes and then save the remaining seven.

Adrian M. Grover 13:59

Very good. Thank you.

Catherine Carey 14:00

Thank you.

Adrian M. Grover 14:02

And for Mr. Asensio.

Catherine Carey 14:04

Uh Rand O'Connor,

Randall Connor 14:05

I'm a statue.

Adrian M. Grover 14:06

And can I ask you to come to the mic so that we can pick up your appearance on our recording?

Randall Connor 14:11

Randall Connor for respondent Robert Asentio.

Adrian M. Grover 14:15

And your time estimate?

Randall Connor 14:17

Uh I would like to do just all ten minutes.

Adrian M. Grover 14:19

Okay, very good, thank you. Um so Miss Carey, when you're ready you may begin.

Catherine Carey 14:25

Thank you, good morning. May it please the court. We are here because the magistrate who oversaw the preliminary hearing in this case determined that there was sufficient evidence to issue a holding order and an information in this case. Another trial court later overturned that decision. But that is not relevant here. The court now conducts a largely de novo review, drawing every inference in favor of the information. To determine whether the information should be reinstated. Since there is plenty of evidence of malice under multiple theories, particularly when viewed in the light of the exceedingly low standard of probable cause at a preliminary hearing. This court should reverse the trial court's nine nine five ruling and reinstate the information.

Catherine Carey 15:14

I want to start by first addressing the questions that the court provided last week. Um with regard to whether the video evidence supports a strong suspicion that the co defendant Ariano was carrying a backpack when he left the victim's residence that he did not have when he arrived. The people's position is that the video does support a strong suspicion of that. Окурс, this is a factual issue that would ultimately be determined by a jury. However, determining that co defendant Ariano had the backpack when he left the victim's residence is a reasonable interpretation of that video. And one that should be drawn in favor of the information at this time. With regard to the magistrates credibility findings for Twit Nguyen, the appellant's girlfriend or the respondent's girlfriend, and Kiana Q, the victim's wife.

Catherine Carey 16:10

The magistrate said that she did not find them credible because their testimony was all over the place and inconsistent with what they told the police and inconsistent with what they testified to at various points in court. The people adopted a conservative view of this factual credibility finding. And declined to use any of their testimony in our arguments. However, if this court wanted to adopt a more narrow interpretation of that factual finding specifically that the finding was only as to the inconsistent parts and therefore the consistent parts remain usable. The people's position is that the court could do so.