People v. Kocontes
| Decision Date | 21 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | G059475 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lonnie Loren KOCONTES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Tracy A. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Britton B. Lacy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Lonnie Loren Kocontes of murdering his ex-wife for financial gain off the coast of Italy. Kocontes concedes sufficient evidence supports his conviction.1 He challenges, however, numerous procedural and evidentiary rulings. Although the trial court erred by admitting evidence, Kocontes was not prejudiced, and his constitutional rights were not infringed. We affirm the judgment.
In May 2006, Kocontes and Micki Kanesaki, his ex-wife, were cruising toward Naples, Italy. After a night of dinner and likely entertainment, they returned to their cabin. About 6:00 a.m. the next morning, Kocontes reported Kanesaki missing. The ship's crew did not find her. About 36 hours later, another ship recovered Kanesaki's body; three medical examiners concluded she did not drown.
In June 2013, the Orange County Grand Jury indicted Kocontes for murder for financial gain ( Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(1), all further statutory references are to the Pen. Code, unless otherwise indicated). There was much pretrial litigation concerning whether Kocontes could be prosecuted in Orange County, whether the prosecution committed outrageous conduct, and whether his Sixth Amendment rights pursuant to Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 ( Massiah ), were violated. Kocontes filed many of these same motions with Judge Gregg L. Prickett, Judge James A. Stotler, and Judge Richard M. King. We discuss these motions in detail below.
This case spawned numerous writ petitions, a dismissed appeal, one prior opinion (later ordered depublished), and another stayed appeal pending the decision in the instant appeal. We discuss our prior opinion, Kocontes, supra , G051809, below.2
Both parties filed in limine motions regarding the admissibility of evidence. We discuss these motions in detail below (we have omitted capitalizations).
Kocontes, an attorney, and Kanesaki, a legal assistant, met while working at the same law firm. They married in the mid-1990's. In 1999, it was alleged Kocontes engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a female. Fearing a civil suit arising from that allegation, Kocontes and Kanesaki divorced to protect their assets but continued to live together. The allegations derailed Kocontes's legal career and negatively impacted his marriage. Later, Kocontes and Kanesaki commingled funds and made their residence joint property.
Kanesaki told her friend Susan White that she did not trust Kocontes concerning money and fidelity.4 Kanesaki wrote White e-mails detailing her concerns.
In 2002, Kocontes met Amy Nguyen. In July 2005, they married and moved into a house in Orange Hills. One day, Kanesaki went to their house and talked with Kocontes for over an hour—he packed his belongings and returned to Kanesaki the same day. A few days later, Nguyen moved out of the Orange Hills house. The day she moved out, Kocontes told Nguyen, " ‘The only way is to get rid of [Kanesaki].’ " Nguyen asked " ‘How?’ " and Kocontes replied, " ‘To make her silent forever.’ " A few days later, Nguyen met with her lawyer and told him that Kocontes wanted to "get rid" of Kanesaki.
In September 2005, Kocontes filed for divorce from Nguyen. Nguyen believed Kocontes divorced her because Kanesaki had information that incriminated him. From the time Kocontes returned to Kanesaki in September 2005 to Spring 2006, Kocontes and Nguyen continued their intimate relationship.
At some point, Nguyen told Kocontes what she told her lawyer about him. At Kocontes's insistence and with his help, Nguyen wrote a letter to her lawyer retracting her statement. She also complied with Kocontes's order to get her file from her lawyer and give it to him.
Kocontes and Kanesaki argued about money. Kanesaki, who was financially savvy, managed their joint accounts, paid the bills, and made investment decisions. Kanesaki told Julie Saranita, her niece, Kocontes wanted to sell the house, but she did not. She was frustrated with him because he micromanaged her purchases. She did not trust him and wanted to protect her and her parents' assets. Kocontes told Nguyen that he was frustrated with Kanesaki because she did not want to sell their house. Kocontes said he needed to get the house from Kanesaki.
In December 2005, Kocontes and Kanesaki executed wills designating each other as sole beneficiaries. Kanesaki designated Kocontes as the sole beneficiary on her retirement account.
In April or May 2006, Kocontes told Nguyen that he was going on a cruise with Kanesaki, his friend Bill Price, and Price's life partner, Susan McQueen. Kocontes and Price met in 1993. Price was a former police officer, a former Drug Enforcement Agent, and a private investigator. They became friends, and Price considered Kocontes a brother. Kocontes shared with him intimate details about his relationships, including that he was not having sexual relations with Kanesaki and he enjoyed sexual relations with Nguyen. Kocontes, who valued money and sex, told Price that he was maintaining a relationship with Kanesaki because he did not want to lose half of his money. Price knew the 1999 allegation negatively affected Kocontes's marriage to Kanesaki and knew about a lawsuit involving Kocontes and Edward Bujanowski.
Price and McQueen were frequent cruisers. Kocontes had spoken with Price about cruise ship security, vis-à-vis, how to enter rooms, whether there were security cameras, and protecting his property.
Kocontes told Nguyen that he and Price planned to have Price's "people" throw Kanesaki in the water. Price and McQueen would be his alibi. Later, Kocontes told Nguyen that Price and McQueen were not going on the cruise and he would "have to take matters into his own hands."
On May 2, 2006, Kocontes, while residing in Orange County, booked a balcony room on the Island Escape cruise ship set to depart on May 23, 2006.
The Island Escape was a car ferry converted into a cruise ship with pre-fabricated balcony units bolted and welded onto the ship. Kocontes's request for the Island Escape was "unusual" because the ship was budget "working class cruising" marketed to the United Kingdom, not the United States. Neither the booking agent nor the ship captain could remember an American cruising on the Island Escape. The booking agent ensured Kocontes knew he was booking an entry level cruise.
On May 24, 2006, the Island Escape departed from Spain. At 6:00 a.m. on May 26, 2006, as the ship approached Naples, Italy, the captain learned Kocontes reported Kanesaki had gone missing. About 90 minutes later, the captain, a former United Kingdom constable, met with Kocontes in his cabin.
Kocontes was "very cold," "not upset at all," and gave "short" answers. Kocontes had showered, one bed had been used, a wine bottle was in the trash can, and a small bottle with tablets was on a dresser.
Kocontes told the captain what he and Kanesaki did the previous evening. They had dinner and bought a bottle of wine; they each drank one glass. They went to a show and the casino before returning to their room about midnight. He took a sleeping pill, and Kanesaki went to get tea about 12:15 a.m. The next thing he remembered was waking up at 4:30 a.m. and Kanesaki was not in the room.
The ship's crew searched for Kanesaki and informed passengers to look for 52-year-old Kanesaki. She was 5'3? tall, weighed 108 pounds, and was wearing green pants and white shoes.
The captain stated the only place to get tea after midnight was the Beachcomber, a staffed self-service buffet one level above Kocontes and Kanesaki's cabin. The captain detailed the few places where a passenger could get outside access and access to a railing other than balconies. He agreed there was no outside access other than the cabin balconies themselves. The captain said staffing at night was minimal but there were security guards, fire patrol, and cleaners. Nobody reported seeing Kanesaki after midnight on the ship, and the security camera surveillance video, which was "very basic and very poor," did not show her.
Kocontes called Price from the ship after Kanesaki went missing. After the ship arrived in Naples, Italy, Kocontes disembarked the ship. He called Price several more times from Italy. The next morning, he flew to Los Angeles and immediately went to Nguyen's house in Riverside. He told her that Kanesaki went overboard.
On the evening of May 27, 2006, a scientific research ship discovered Kanesaki's body off the coast of Naples, Italy. Crew members recovered her unusually intact body, and the Italian...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pipkins
... ... '[A] series of trial errors, ... though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise ... by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial ... error.'" ( In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, ... 483, italics added; accord, People v. Kocontes ... (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 787, 891-892; People v. Sorden ... (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 582, 618.)" 'The "litmus ... test" for cumulative error "is whether defendant ... received due process and a fair trial." '" ... ( People v. Thomas (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 924, 971.) ... ...
-
People v. Leyva
... ... Counsel's participation in ... jury selection is part of providing an effective defense ... ( People v. Locklar (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 224, 229.) ... The defendant has a right to participate in jury selection by ... consulting with counsel. (See People v. Kocontes ... (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 787, 873-875 [right to consult counsel ... during trial]; People v. Wall (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1048, ... 1059 [jury selection a" 'critical stage' " ... of trial, defendant has" 'constitutional right to be ... present' "].) And the right to a ... ...