Teran v. Superior Court CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086582 · 2025-08-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: writ
Trial judge: Daniel Goldstein
Outcome: writ granted — Petition granted.
Area: criminal
Panel: Buchanan (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:41Z · confidence high

The trial court denied the petitioner's motion to exclude DNA evidence and his subsequent motion for reconsideration seeking a third-prong Kelly hearing. The Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate, ordering the trial court to vacate its orders and conduct the required third-prong Kelly hearing.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to exclude DNA evidence and motion for reconsideration seeking a third-prong Kelly hearing “We conclude the superior court must conduct further proceedings consistent with Kelly, before proceeding with trial.”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court determined that the trial court was required to conduct a third-prong Kelly hearing to establish that correct scientific procedures were used in the specific case, particularly given the complex familial DNA mixtures involved. The court found that the trial court's denial of the motion to reconsider, which sought this specific hearing, was improper because the foundational showing had not yet been made in the trial court.

Authorities

relied: People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 — Establishes the three-prong test for admitting scientific evidence, specifically requiring the proponent to demonstrate that correct scientific procedures were used in the particular case under the third prong.
relied: People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th 47 — Clarifies that the third-prong inquiry assumes general acceptance of the technique's validity and focuses on whether the specific procedures utilized in the case complied with that technique.
relied: People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682 — States that a third-prong Kelly hearing is limited and does not approach the complexity of a full-blown Kelly hearing, requiring only a foundational showing that correct scientific procedures were used.
relied: People v. Morganti (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 643 — Holds that the third prong requires case-specific proof and cannot be satisfied by relying solely on a published appellate decision, necessitating expert testimony or similar evidence of protocol adherence.
relied: Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232 — Supports the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance when further proceedings are warranted and no useful purpose would be served by plenary consideration.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the established Kelly framework to the specific facts of complex familial DNA mixtures, citing appropriate authorities to define the scope of the third-prong hearing. It appropriately resolves the procedural posture by granting the writ to compel the necessary foundational hearing rather than deciding the merits of the DNA evidence itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Teran's motion to exclude DNA mixture evidence in a Penal Code section 269 prosecution and then denied his motion for reconsideration seeking a third-prong Kelly hearing on whether correct scientific procedures were used in his case. On Teran's writ petition, with the People conceding a hearing should be held, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ in the first instance directing the superior court to vacate both orders and conduct further proceedings consistent with Kelly before trial.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to exclude DNA results and denial of reconsideration motion requesting a third-prong Kelly hearing on whether correct scientific procedures were used in this case “We conclude the superior court must conduct further proceedings consistent with Kelly, before proceeding with trial.”	unclear	error (evidentiary)	agree with court Under Kelly's third prong the proponent of scientific evidence must make a case-specific, evidentiary foundational showing that correct procedures were used (Kelly, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30; Venegas, 18 Cal.4th at p. 81; Morganti, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 661). Teran raised a specific challenge to the lab's handling of complex familial DNA mixtures, the People conceded a hearing was warranted, and no such foundational showing had been made, so directing the hearing is consistent with the cited authority. The opinion does not describe the trial court's reasoning or articulate a standard of review, which limits certainty, but the result follows from Kelly and the People's concession.

Authorities

relied: People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 — Proponent of scientific evidence must show general acceptance, qualified expert, and that correct scientific procedures were used in the particular case (third prong).
relied: People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th 47 — Third-prong inquiry assumes general acceptance and asks whether the procedures used in the case at hand complied with the accepted technique; reviewing court defers to trial court's credibility and factual determinations on that question.
relied: People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682 — A third-prong Kelly hearing is limited and requires only a foundational showing that correct scientific procedures were used.
relied: People v. Morganti (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 643 — The third prong requires case-specific proof and cannot be satisfied by relying on a published appellate decision; expert testimony that established protocol was followed can suffice.
relied: Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232 — A peremptory writ in the first instance is appropriate where the parties have had notice and no useful purpose would be served by plenary consideration.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly stated the third-prong Kelly framework from Kelly, Venegas, Buell, and Morganti and reached a result both parties requested, and it properly invoked Code of Civil Procedure section 1088 and Lewis for issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance. It does not, however, explain what the trial court's reasons were or why they were wrong, identify a standard of review, or address whether vacating the underlying denial of the exclusion motion (rather than only the reconsideration order) was necessary, leaving the analysis largely dependent on the People's concession.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/27/25 Teran v. Superior Court CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REYES IBARRA TERAN, D086582

Petitioner, (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD297120) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate. Daniel Goldstein, Judge. Petition granted. Jo E. Super, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Troy A. Britt, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Summer Stephan, District Attorney, Dwain Woodley, Assistant District Attorney, Linh Lam, Valerie Ryan, Emmaline Campbell and Carrie Johnson, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Reyes Ibarra Teran petitions this court for a writ commanding the superior court to vacate its denial of his motion to exclude DNA results and to hold a hearing under the third prong of People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 (Kelly).) Real party in interest, the People, ask us to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to conduct the third prong Kelly hearing. We grant the petition.

2 BACKGROUND Teran has been charged with a violation of Penal Code section 269, subdivision (a) (aggravated sexual assault of a minor under age 14), and related crimes, in connection with the alleged sexual assault of V.C., the daughter of his girlfriend. Seven individuals live in their home: Teran, the girlfriend, V.C., three children of Teran and the girlfriend, and the girlfriend’s mother. Swabs were taken from Teran and V.C. after the alleged assault and DNA tested by the San Diego Police Department crime lab. After further DNA testing incorporating familial reference swabs, the lab found moderate support for the conclusion that V.C. was a contributor to Teran’s penile swab. Teran filed a motion to exclude the DNA evidence, arguing the lab failed to use valid methods, including due to the complex familial DNA mixtures at issue. After the superior court denied the motion, Teran filed a reconsideration motion, seeking a third prong Kelly hearing to contest whether the People showed proper scientific procedures were used in his case. The superior court denied this request as well. Teran then petitioned this court for a writ directing the superior court to vacate its order denying his motion and to hold a third prong Kelly hearing. We granted a temporary stay of trial and asked the People to provide an informal response that addressed the third prong of Kelly. In the People’s response, they “request that this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the lower court to conduct a third prong [Kelly] hearing as to the DNA evidence proffered by the People.” The People also request that we make our decision final upon filing and issue the remittitur immediately.

3 DISCUSSION Both parties now request that we direct the superior court to conduct a third prong Kelly hearing. We conclude the superior court must conduct further proceedings consistent with Kelly, before proceeding with trial. Under Kelly’s third prong, the proponent of scientific evidence “must demonstrate that correct scientific procedures were used in the particular case.” (Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30; see People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th 47, 81 [inquiry assumes “general acceptance of its validity by the relevant scientific community has been established”; issue is “whether the procedures utilized in the case at hand complied with that technique”]; see Venegas, at p. 78.) The hearing does “not approach the ‘complexity of a full- blown’ Kelly hearing.” (People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, 691.) “ ‘All that is necessary in the limited third-prong hearing is a foundational showing that correct scientific procedures were used.’ ” (Ibid.) At the same time, the People’s showing must have some evidentiary, not just legal, support and the superior court must resolve any conflicts in the evidence and determine if an adequate foundation is demonstrated. (Cf. People v. Morganti (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 643, 661 [because third prong “requires case specific proof . . . , it cannot be satisfied by relying on a published appellate decision”]; Morganti, at p. 662 [“prosecution made the necessary foundational showing” based on expert’s testimony that he “followed established procedure or protocol”]; Venegas, at p. 91 [in review of third prong ruling, reviewing court accepts the “trial court’s resolutions of credibility, choices of reasonable inferences, and factual determinations from conflicting substantial evidence”].) Because further proceedings under Kelly are warranted, and have not yet taken place, a peremptory writ in the first instance is appropriate. Both 4 parties have now requested these further proceedings and no useful purpose would be served by plenary consideration of the issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; cf. Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.) DISPOSITION Let a writ issue commanding respondent, immediately upon receipt of the writ, to vacate its orders denying the motion to exclude DNA results and motion to reconsider, and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The stay previously issued by this court is dissolved. In the interests of justice, this opinion is final upon filing, and the remittitur shall issue immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Lewis v. Superior Court S061240 · 1999-02-08
People v. Venegas S044870 · 1998-05-11
People v. Morganti A062623 · 1996-03-13
People v. Kelly Crim. 19028 · 1976-05-28