In re Conner T. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 9, 2026
• Docket: E086716
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 4/9/26 In re Conner T. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re CONNER T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, E086716 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DLIN2200033) v. OPINION CONNER T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Emily Benjamini, Judge.

Affirmed.

Annie Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Donald W. Ostertag and Elana

Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 The People filed a juvenile wardship petition against Conner T. alleging that he

committed murder. Conner appeals from the juvenile court’s order transferring him to

adult criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. (Unlabeled

statutory references are to this code.) He argues that the court considered unreliable

evidence, so the findings underlying the court’s transfer order are not supported by

substantial evidence. Conner also argues that the court erred by admitting opinion

evidence regarding his credibility. In addition, he argues that the court violated the

corpus delicti rule by relying on his out-of-court statements that he was involved in other

murders. We affirm.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

“Section 707 sets forth the procedures for transferring a minor from juvenile court

to criminal court. It provides that whenever a minor aged 16 years or older is alleged to

have committed a felony, the prosecutor may move ‘to transfer the minor from juvenile

court to a court of criminal jurisdiction.’ (§ 707, subd. (a)(1).) The prosecution bears the

burden of proving that the minor should be transferred. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule

5.770(a).)” (In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164 (Miguel R.).)

After the People move to transfer the minor, “the juvenile court shall order the

probation officer to submit a report on the behavioral patterns and social history of the

minor.” (§ 707, subd. (a)(1).) “Following submission and consideration of the report,

and of any other relevant evidence that the petitioner or the minor may wish to submit,

the juvenile court shall decide whether the minor should be transferred to a court of

2 criminal jurisdiction. In order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of

criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor

is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”

(§ 707, subd. (a)(3).)

The court must consider five criteria when deciding whether the minor is

amenable to rehabilitation under juvenile court jurisdiction. (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)-(E).)

“Those criteria are (1) ‘the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor’

(§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(i)), (2) ‘[w]hether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the

expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction’ (§ 707(a)(3)(B)(i)), (3) ‘[t]he minor’s

previous delinquent history’ (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(C)(i)), (4) ‘[s]uccess of previous

attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor’ (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(D)(i)), and

(5) ‘[t]he circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been

committed by the minor’ (§ 707, subd.(a)(3)(E)(i)). The statute sets forth a

nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the court to consider with respect to each of the

five criteria. (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii), (B)(ii), (C)(ii), (D)(ii), (E)(ii).)”1 (Miguel R.,

supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 164.)

1 The listed relevant factors for the five criteria are: “the minor’s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical, mental, and emotional health at the time of the alleged offense; the minor’s impetuosity or failure to appreciate risks and consequences of criminal behavior; the effect of familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor’s actions; the effect of the minor’s family and community environment; the existence of childhood trauma; the minor’s involvement in the child welfare or foster care system; and the status of the minor as a victim of human trafficking, sexual abuse, or sexual battery on the [footnote continued on next page]

3 BACKGROUND

I. The alleged offense and the subsequent investigation2

The murder victim, Jeremy Abshear, was found shot to death in May 2023.

Conner was 17 years old at the time. He turned 18 years old in July 2023, roughly two

months later. Conner and four other individuals were involved in the shooting. The

other individuals were Cody Barneck (age 33), Mark Barneck (age 66), Aisa Bailey (age

19), and Angel L. (age 16).3 Cody is Mark’s son; father and son lived at the same

residence. Bailey is Mark’s grandson and Cody’s nephew. Conner and Angel are

Bailey’s friends.

The murder victim assaulted Cody and Mark with a plastic axe handle. The next

day, Mark asked Bailey for a firearm to protect against the victim. Bailey, Conner, and

minor’s criminal sophistication” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii) [degree of criminal sophistication]); “the minor’s potential to grow and mature” (id., subd. (a)(3)(B)(ii) [possibility of rehabilitation within the time remaining of juvenile court jurisdiction]); “the seriousness of the minor’s previous delinquent history and the effect of the minor’s family and community environment and childhood trauma on the minor’s previous delinquent behavior” (id., subd. (a)(3)(C)(ii) [previous delinquent history]); “the adequacy of the services previously provided to address the minor’s needs” (id., subd. (a)(3)(D)(ii) [previous juvenile court attempts to rehabilitate]); and “the actual behavior of the person, the mental state of the person, the person’s degree of involvement in the crime, the level of harm actually caused by the person, and the person’s mental and emotional development” (id., subd. (a)(3)(E)(ii) [circumstances and gravity of the alleged offense]).

2 We take the facts of the alleged offense and the investigation details from the probation report. The probation report summarizes law enforcement interviews with participants in the alleged offense, which took place within days of the offense.

3 Because of their shared last name, we refer to Cody and Mark by their first names. No disrespect is intended. 4 Angel arrived at Cody and Mark’s residence in the late-night hours, armed and wearing

black ski masks. Bailey drove the group, which also included his girlfriend. The

girlfriend remained in the car when the males got out.

Bailey gave Cody a .22-caliber rifle. The victim arrived a few minutes later.

Cody fired a warning shot in the victim’s direction when the victim began walking

toward the group. Bailey, Conner, and Angel then fired at the victim. The victim fell to

the ground, and one or more of the shooters continued to fire at him. Bailey, Conner, and

Angel fled in Bailey’s car immediately after the shooting. Cody and Mark walked into

the desert and buried the rifle there. Cody later led investigators to the rifle. Mark later

called the shooting “a revenge killing.”

The victim had five gunshot wounds in his back. Investigators found five

expended .380-caliber rounds near the victim’s body and two expended nine-millimeter

rounds in front of the residence.

Law enforcement searched Conner’s residence in October 2023. Officers found a

nine-millimeter firearm and a .40-caliber firearm in a backpack. They also found

ammunition of various calibers. When officers interviewed Conner, he said that Bailey

and a female picked him up on the day of the shooting. But Conner did not remember

anything else, “because his memory was a blur.” He also said that the firearms found at

his residence did not belong to his family members and that he was holding them for

“someone.”

5 Law enforcement also analyzed Conner’s cell phone and found numerous images

of firearms, including the .22-caliber rifle that Cody used in the shooting. The phone

contained a photo of a male wearing a black ski mask and a photo of the crime scene

perimeter, which was dated one day after the shooting.

II. The wardship petitions

In August 2022, the People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that Conner

committed one count of felony vandalism and one count of misdemeanor vandalism.

(Pen. Code, § 594.) He was caught on video throwing a rock at a car window, and the

rock ricocheted off that car and broke the window of another car. He admitted the felony

charge, and the court deferred entry of judgment and placed Conner on probation in

October 2022. (See In re J.G. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 867, 869 [“Under California’s deferred

entry of judgment procedure, an eligible minor, after admitting the charges in a petition

alleging a violation of law and successfully completing probation, may have the charges

dismissed and the juvenile court records sealed”].)

The juvenile court set the vandalism matter for a review hearing on October 19,

2023. The probation officer reported that Conner’s performance on probation had been

“fair,” and the officer recommended that the court terminate probation, dismiss the

petition, and order Conner’s records sealed. Conner’s mother was serving a state prison

sentence, and he was living with his grandfather.

6 The People filed a subsequent petition on the day of the review hearing, so the

court continued the matter. The subsequent petition alleged that in July 2023, several

days before Conner’s 18th birthday, he committed a misdemeanor violation of driving

under the influence of alcohol (DUI). (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a).) He lost control of

his car and crashed into a parked car. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.146 percent, and

his blood also tested positive for cannabinoids.

Conner was arrested for Abshear’s murder on October 27, 2023, and detained in

juvenile hall. The People filed a second subsequent petition alleging that Conner

committed murder in May 2023. (Pen. Code, § 187.) The petition also alleged that

Conner personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury or

death. (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d).)

In light of the subsequent petitions, the court lifted deferred entry of judgment on

the initial vandalism petition. (§ 793, subd. (a).)

III. The transfer motion, the psychological evaluations, and the probation report

After the People filed the second subsequent petition alleging murder, they

immediately moved to transfer Conner to criminal court under subdivision (a)(1) of

section 707. Conner’s counsel asked the court to appoint a psychologist to evaluate

Conner under Evidence Code section 1017, and the court appointed Dr. William Jones.

The probation department later asked the court for a psychological evaluation of Conner

under section 741, and the court appointed Dr. Robert Suiter.

7 A. Dr. Jones’s report

Dr. Jones evaluated Conner in July 2024. The doctor interviewed Conner and his

maternal grandfather. Conner reported that he spent most of his life in the home of his

maternal grandparents, and they were his only source of stability. His maternal

grandmother was like a mother to him, and he was also close to his maternal grandfather.

Conner began abusing drugs and alcohol when his maternal grandmother died in 2018.

Both of his parents abused alcohol and drugs, and his mother was sentenced to prison for

multiple DUI offenses. His parents lived together until Conner was five or six years old.

The parents physically abused him, and he witnessed domestic violence between his

parents and between his father and stepmother. His mother moved them around

frequently when they were not living in the grandparents’ home. He avoided going home

because he did not like to see his mother intoxicated.

Conner had felt depressed and anxious for a long time because of his chaotic and

abusive upbringing. He had difficulty sleeping and had nightmares about twice per week.

He said that he had been shot at five times when he was 18 years old. Since he had been

in juvenile hall, three friends had been shot, and two of them were paralyzed.

Conner began using alcohol and marijuana around age 13 and used both regularly.

He began using cocaine and methamphetamine a few years later, and he believed that he

was addicted to both. He had also used LSD, PCP, ketamine, Oxycontin, Norco, and

Xanax.

8 In the car accident that led to his DUI charge, Conner broke his left leg and arm,

requiring surgery on both. He received therapy for several years around age 13 after the

child welfare agency referred him, but he did not like talking about personal matters with

a stranger.

Conner graduated from high school and was taking college-level classes at

juvenile hall. He had an individual education plan in high school, indicating that he had a

learning disability. He wanted to have his own welding business, and he had worked in

construction and at a restaurant.

Conner’s grandfather described him as quiet, cooperative, and a “‘good kid’” who

had many friends. Conner and his grandfather had a very good relationship, and his

grandfather was surprised by the murder charge. He said that Conner was very affected

by the loss of his grandmother and that Conner was traumatized by his mother’s

alcoholism.

Dr. Jones diagnosed Conner with posttraumatic stress disorder. Symptoms of

posttraumatic stress disorder include irritability, angry outbursts with little or no

provocation, impulsivity, recklessness, and self-destructive behavior. Dr. Jones opined

that Conner likely experienced those symptoms.

B. Dr. Suiter’s report

Dr. Suiter evaluated Conner in September 2024. Dr. Suiter interviewed Conner

and administered several psychological tests. The doctor also reviewed two police

9 reports regarding the alleged offense, Dr. Jones’s report, Conner’s academic records, and

Conner’s CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) printout.

Dr. Suiter’s interview with Conner elicited much of the same information

contained in Dr. Jones’s report. Conner described his parents’ substance abuse, his close

relationship with his grandparents, his grandmother’s death, and his own substance abuse.

Dr. Suiter concluded that Conner was likely open and honest during the

psychological testing, but there were some indications that Conner was attempting to

present himself in an unduly negative light. The doctor opined that Conner was likely

experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. He further opined that Conner

has a “fairly significant mistrust of others” and is likely to feel that others are treating him

inequitably. Conner was prone to impulsivity and rapid mood swings. In addition, he

might “have some mild underlying anger and hostility,” but he was “not necessarily

predisposed to express it verbally or physically.” He also was not predisposed to use

guns and violence.

Dr. Suiter concluded that Conner likely has substance abuse disorders, including

alcohol, cocaine, and amphetamine-type use disorders. Conner also “may have a history

of antisocial behavior and/or a manifested conduct disorder during adolescence.” The

doctor concluded that Conner “clearly” needed long-term substance abuse treatment and

that he likely would benefit from psychotropic medication and therapy.

10 C. The probation report

In December 2024, the probation department submitted a report recommending

that the juvenile court deny the transfer motion. The probation report described Conner’s

personal history and included statements from Conner and his mother. The probation

officer also reviewed and considered the reports of Dr. Jones and Dr. Suiter.

Conner’s mother reported that his father was physically and emotionally abusive

and that Conner witnessed much domestic violence between his father and his father’s

partners. Conner denied being the victim of any abuse. But Conner was the subject of

numerous dependency referrals between 2008 and 2023. The referrals regarding both

parents were substantiated in two cases, and the remaining referrals were unfounded,

inconclusive, or evaluated out. The first set of substantiated referrals occurred in 2008,

when Conner was two years old. The reporting party said that the parents had a history

of drug and alcohol abuse, the home was filthy and lacked any food, and Conner and his

siblings were “really hungry.”

The second set of substantiated referrals occurred in 2019, when Conner was 13

years old. Conner’s mother was found asleep on a bench at the mall. She smelled

strongly of alcohol, and Conner’s one-year-old brother was crying in a stroller next to

her. The court removed Conner from his mother’s custody and placed him with his

father. Conner said that he lived with his father for one year and then returned to his

mother’s home, but his mother said that he lived with his father for only three months.

She said that Conner was removed from his father after they got into a physical fight.

11 With respect to substance abuse, Conner reported that he started smoking

marijuana at age 13 and smoked daily when he could afford it. He also used cocaine and

inhalants for roughly six months when he was 17 years old. When he was 16 years old,

he started using Xanax and Percocet five times per week for about two years. Conner

began drinking alcohol at age 14 or 15. He started drinking when his grandmother died,

and he drank three times per week.

During Conner’s time in juvenile hall, he was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress

disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He received some counseling in

connection with prior dependency proceedings. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous

meetings with his father, but Conner was not consistent with the program. Conner’s

mother said that he also suffered from depression.

In November 2022, Conner denied that he was a gang member, but he said that he

got along with members of the Barrio San Rafael gang. He told juvenile hall staff in

October 2023 that he would “have issues” with two other gangs. When interviewed in

December 2024, Conner said that he had been associating with the Barrio San Rafael

gang since he was 18 years old. The probation report described Conner’s numerous

tattoos. He had several tattoos on his left forearm, including an “A” on one side, a “B”

on the other side, and a turtle.

Conner’s adjustment to juvenile hall was “[s]atisfactory.” He earned his high

school diploma in May 2024. He engaged in programs regularly, and staff described him

as quiet, helpful, and respectful. But there were also some negative reports. In

12 November 2024, staff noted that Conner was “‘very entitled’” and had questioned staff.

He also instigated arguments between others. In December 2024, he asked to be

segregated after two youths attacked him.

Conner hoped that the juvenile court did not transfer his matter to criminal court,

and he wanted to go to college, work, stay sober, and “‘make good choices.’” On the

advice of counsel, he did not discuss the alleged offense or the victim. Conner’s mother

was confident that he was innocent. She described him as loving, docile, and calm, and

she blamed Bailey for Conner’s behavior. She said that Conner had “‘affiliated with the

wrong person.’”

If Conner were to remain under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, then he would be

eligible for the local Pathways to Success program. Youths in that program are housed in

a secure juvenile hall unit or a transitional dorm unit. Each youth has a multidisciplinary

treatment team consisting of probation staff, educational personnel, behavioral health

staff, an institutional nurse, and an approved community partner. The youth has an

individualized treatment plan, and their treatment team meets weekly to review their

progress. The programs and services available at Pathways to Success include individual

therapy, group therapy, group classes on dialectical behavior therapy and restorative

justice, aggression replacement training, gang disassociation, parenting education,

substance abuse treatment, victim awareness education, job skills training, career

guidance, and programs called “Thinking for a Change” and “Forward Thinking.”

13 The probation officer opined that two of the five criteria contained in section 707,

subdivision (a)(3), weighed in favor of transferring Conner to criminal court: the degree

of criminal sophistication exhibited by him and the circumstances and gravity of his

alleged offense. But the probation officer recommended that the juvenile court retain

jurisdiction over Conner on the basis of the other three statutory criteria: whether Conner

could be rehabilitated before the expiration of juvenile court jurisdiction, his delinquent

history, and the success of previous attempts to rehabilitate him. Conner was 19 years

old at the time, so more than five years of juvenile court jurisdiction remained. The

probation officer concluded that five-plus years was sufficient time to rehabilitate Conner

through Pathways to Success. The officer further concluded that his delinquent history

was minimal and did not involve violence. And the officer reasoned that although

Conner’s term of probation for the vandalism offense had not successfully rehabilitated

him, he had never received treatment in a secure setting like Pathways to Success.

D. The People’s brief

The People’s brief in support of their transfer motion included numerous exhibits.

Five of those exhibits were police reports concerning a stabbing incident at a high school

in October 2021. B.S. stabbed the victim, Dallas N., in the abdomen and arm. According

to the reports, Conner said that he was B.S.’s friend and that he was present during the

incident. Dallas also told officers that Conner and another youth were with B.S. during

the incident. Dallas said that B.S. started a fight with him, and then B.S.’s “friends”

surrounded Dallas. After some mutual shoving between B.S. and Dallas, B.S.’s friends

14 tried to hold Dallas, who tried to push them away. B.S. then pulled out a knife and

stabbed Dallas, and B.S.’s friends tried to block Dallas from fleeing. Law enforcement

determined that B.S., Conner, and the third youth planned the attack on Dallas, and the

investigators forwarded the matter to the district attorney’s office for the prosecution of

all three youths.

IV. The transfer hearing

The court held the contested transfer hearing in May and June 2025. Three

witnesses testified: an investigator in the central homicide unit of the sheriff’s

department, Joshua Manjarrez; an investigator in the district attorney’s office, Rebecca

Torres; and the probation officer who prepared the report for the transfer hearing. The

court also admitted Conner’s school disciplinary records, some juvenile hall incident

reports, and a letter from Conner to the court.

A. Manjarrez’s testimony

Manjarrez was a primary investigator of the shooting in this case. Officers

arrested Bailey at his residence two days after the shooting. Conner was there, and

officers detained him until an adult picked him up. Conner had $700 in cash on him.

The sheriff’s department searched Conner’s cell phone in May 2023, shortly after

the shooting. The phone contained numerous photos of firearms, several photos of

Conner with firearms, and conversations indicating that he was buying and selling

firearms. For instance, there were photos of Conner with other youths in which he was

drinking from a beer bottle and holding a firearm. The phone also contained a photo of a

15 person in a black ski mask, and the same photo appeared on Conner’s social media

account. In addition, there was a photo of a .22-caliber rifle that was identical to the rifle

used in the shooting.

The Instagram account on Conner’s phone used his known monikers, “Dino

Strapz” and “C-LOK.” The friends in the photos and videos on Conner’s Instagram

account typically included Bailey and Angel. Conner and Bailey were “best friends” and

very close. Conner’s Instagram account included photos of firearms and conversations

regarding buying and selling firearms and narcotics. In addition, posts on Conner’s

Instagram account showed photos of Bailey in a courtroom and referred to freeing him,

as in, “free Aisa.” One post showed Bailey in a courtroom and a female deputy in the

background. The deputy was circled, and there was a caption on the image stating,

“‘[T]his bitch was there when we got arrested.’” Another post showed Bailey and Cody

in a courtroom and referred to Cody as a “rat.” Specifically, there was a caption next to

Cody stating, “Fuck a,” followed by two rat emojis. Cody was wearing a yellow

jumpsuit. In county jail, the yellow jumpsuit signifies protective custody. It is a common

perception that an inmate is in protective custody because they have “snitched” to law

enforcement.

Manjarrez spoke to Bailey’s girlfriend in the course of his investigation. She said

that on the night of the shooting, she and Bailey picked up two of Bailey’s friends before

heading to the location of the shooting. Both friends wore dark or black clothing,

including black ski masks, and both friends had firearms.

16 Manjarrez arrested Conner and participated in the search of Conner’s residence in

October 2023. Officers found a nine-millimeter firearm, a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson

firearm with a tactical light on the rail, a Glock firearm, a great deal of live ammunition,

expended casings, an empty package of night sights for a firearm, and firearm cleaning

supplies. Some of the firearms were in a bag in his grandfather’s room. According to

ballistics analyses, the firearms found at Conner’s residence were not used in the shooting

of Abshear.

The bullets recovered from Abshear’s body were from a .38-caliber firearm and

did not match the .380 casings found at the scene. A .38-caliber gun is typically a

revolver, which does not expel casings automatically. The shooter would have to

manually extract the casings from the wheel of the gun, which is not common at crime

scenes. Abshear was shot in the back. Manjarrez had not found any evidence that the

victim was armed with a firearm when he was shot.

Manjarrez interviewed Conner after his arrest. Manjarrez created a fake lineup in

which Conner’s photo was circled. He showed it to Conner, and Conner said that it was

“funny to him” that he was in a lineup with “a bunch of innocent people.” Conner said

that the investigator “had put him in a lineup with a bunch of preppy white boys.”

The deputy district attorney asked Manjarrez to describe Conner’s demeanor

during the interview. Manjarrez replied: “It was my opinion, to me, that he was not

being truthful. He was being a little evasive. He was trying to distance himself, very

vague.” Conner was also dismissive of the evidence that the investigator showed him.

17 He appeared uninterested and yawned during key portions of the interview. But Conner

admitted that he was with Bailey on the day of the shooting. Conner said that he did not

recall anything about the shooting, and “it was a blur.” At that point, he said that he did

not want to speak with Manjarrez anymore, and he asked for an attorney.

Manjarrez conducted a “Perkins operation” in which undercover agents were

placed in a monitored location with Conner to gather information.4 The operation took

place on the day of Conner’s arrest, and it was audio and video recorded. Manjarrez

monitored the operation in real time from a remote location in the same facility. He also

reviewed the recording later, and he wrote a report regarding the operation.

Conner and the undercover agents were wearing civilian attire. Conner and the

agents were joking and laughing, and they seemed to be connecting. They had “good

chemistry,” and Conner seemed to relate to the undercover agents as peers or

contemporaries. It did not appear as though Conner was under any pressure or stressed.

The undercover agents did not appear to be aggressive or intimidating.

Conner told the undercover agents that he, his friend Bailey, and Bailey’s family

members were arrested for a homicide. He said that Bailey was upset because the victim

had assaulted his grandfather. Conner described the victim as “a tweaker and a nobody.”

Bailey asked Conner to “go handle some shit” with Bailey. Conner replied, “Fuck yeah,

4 Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292 (Perkins) held that an undercover officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give warnings under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 “before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response.” (Perkins, at p. 300.) 18 pick me up.” They also picked up a “youngster” named “Miclo,” which was Angel’s

moniker. They included Angel because he was a juvenile and “active,” meaning that he

was willing to commit crimes and was not afraid. Conner left his cell phone at home so

that his location could not be tracked. Bailey’s girlfriend was also present, and Conner

asked Bailey why he had brought his girlfriend. Conner told Bailey that he “knew better

than to bring a girl along.”

Conner stated that Bailey shot the victim when the victim approached their group;

Bailey said, “‘[T]his is for my grandpa, bitch ass . . . .’” After that, “everybody” shot at

the victim. The victim fell to the ground and was “making noises.” Conner then walked

up to the victim and shot him two more times. He said that Angel used a .380-caliber

firearm during the shooting. Conner thought that Bailey’s girlfriend had “snitched on

them to the police.” Conner contacted her and demanded to know what she had told law

Conner also told the undercover agents that officers were searching his home and

would find “blowers,” or guns, that he had hidden in his grandfather’s room. The guns

were “dirty,” meaning that they had been used in crimes. In particular, a .40-caliber

Smith & Wesson firearm was used in a murder. Conner said that he had recently sold

three firearms.

19 Conner additionally told the undercover agents that he had been involved in four

other murders and had never been arrested for those crimes.5 He gave the undercover

agents detailed information about the other murders. Conner’s statements enabled

Manjarrez to identify which law enforcement agencies would be investigating those

murders, so he forwarded the information to the relevant agencies. Manjarrez thought

that Conner’s statements were “credible enough,” because Conner’s statements about the

present case were credible. Conner had disclosed nonpublic information about this case

to the undercover agents, and only someone involved in the offense or the investigation

would know that information.

Conner mentioned that a tattoo on his arm represented a homicide that he had

committed with Bailey. He said that he went by “C-LOK,” “Dino,” and “C-murder”

among his friends.

B. Torres’s testimony

Torres had contact with Conner in connection with the 2021 stabbing of Dallas.

She investigated that stabbing, and Conner “ha[d] some play in that particular

investigation,” but B.S. was arrested for the stabbing. Torres accessed Conner’s public

Instagram profile. In October 2023, Conner posted a video showing a tattoo of a “B” and

5 The record is unclear regarding the number of other murders. Manjarrez testified that Conner said that he was involved in four other murders. According to Manjarrez’s report on the Perkins operation, “Conner stated he had committed four other murders,” and this case was his first arrest for murder. But several paragraphs later, the same report states: “Conner confirmed he got away with three additional murders, and this was his fourth.” 20 a turtle on one side of a forearm. Next to the “B,” a caption stated: “[B.] I love you dawg

no gay shit had to get a turtle for you an a B your like my bro, me you and asa been

through it all and always been solid to each other.” That caption used B.S.’s first name.

(All typographical and grammatical errors are in the original caption.)

In October 2023, Conner also posted a video of large bundles of cash, including

$100, $50, and $20 bills. The video was in an album called “Work.”

Torres listened to calls that Conner made from juvenile hall. Although Bailey also

was in custody, Conner was able to speak to him. Conner called his mother, who

connected Conner to a third person, and that third person was on a call with Bailey.

Conner and Bailey spoke about letters that they had written to each other. Bailey did not

receive one particular letter. They believed that was because Conner had put “gang

writing” or tagging in the letter, so Conner said that he would erase the tagging and

resend the letter.

C. The probation officer’s testimony

According to the probation officer, the Pathways to Success program took four to

seven years to complete. Conner’s amenability to rehabilitation in the juvenile court

would depend largely on whether he embraced the programming available in Pathways to

Success. That would include disassociating from gang members or criminal associates.

He had not previously received comprehensive rehabilitative programming. The deferred

entry of judgment with respect to the vandalism petition was “minimal intervention.”

21 The probation officer was not aware of the Perkins operation in this case, so she

did not consider it in preparing her report.

D. School disciplinary records and juvenile hall incident reports

Conner’s school disciplinary records showed that in 2020, when he was 14, he was

suspended for three days after he was found with a THC vape pen and a nicotine vape

pen. He said that the THC pen was for his own use and that he planned to sell the

nicotine pen. In 2018, he received detention for twice saying “the f-bomb” to a security

guard. That same year, he was cited for harassment or bullying on the basis of race,

classroom disruption, and disrespectful comments to a substitute teacher. He was also

suspended for two days for engaging in mutual combat with another student.

According to an April 2024 juvenile hall incident report, staff found contraband in

Conner’s room, including a SIM card for an MP3 player and a photo of a youth

displaying apparent gang hand signs. In December 2024, another youth attacked Conner.

E. Conner’s letter to the court

In Conner’s letter to the court, he stated that he was drug free and intended to stay

sober when he got out of custody. He wanted a “fresh start at life,” to attend college, and

to find a good job. He missed his family and wanted to be there for his niece, his

younger brothers, and his grandfather, whose health was failing. He was certain that he

would not be “hanging out with the same people” anymore. He planned to attend church

every week and look for Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Conner felt that being in

juvenile hall had changed him for the better. He had not fought since his detention, even

22 though peers had attacked him. He learned that violence would not solve anything.

Conner hoped to be released soon.

V. The juvenile court’s ruling

The court issued a 36-page tentative ruling granting the People’s transfer motion.

At a hearing in July 2025, the court adopted the tentative ruling as its final ruling. The

court found by clear and convincing evidence that Conner was not amenable to

rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

With respect to the first criterion—the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited

by Conner (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(i))—the court found Conner “to be highly criminally

sophisticated for a minor.” The court concluded that the facts of the alleged murder

showed “a great deal of preplanning and sophistication.” In addition, Conner’s actions

after the alleged offense demonstrated criminal sophistication. For instance, he contacted

Bailey’s girlfriend and demanded to know what she told law enforcement, and he placed

Cody and a deputy in danger by posting negative social media content about them.

Moreover, evidence unrelated to the alleged murder showed Conner’s criminal

sophistication. He possessed multiple firearms and ammunition, he had been buying and

selling firearms and narcotics, he was posing with firearms in photos, and he had been

associating with gang members before and after the alleged offense. Conner also told the

undercover agents that the firearms at his residence had been used in crimes, and he said

that he had been involved in four other murders but had never been arrested for one until

now. The court observed that Conner had provided detailed information about the other

23 murders and that Manjarrez believed that information was credible, and the investigator

had forwarded the information to the relevant law enforcement agencies. (The court

noted that the People had not introduced the recording of the Perkins operation, but they

offered Manjarrez’s testimony and report about the operation.) The court weighed the

reports of Dr. Suiter and Dr. Jones, Conner’s dependency history, and the evidence of his

chaotic and traumatic upbringing. But “without minimizing [Conner’s] trauma,” the

court found that all of that evidence did not “reduce [Conner’s] criminal sophistication.”

The court thus concluded that the criterion supported transfer to criminal court.

Regarding the second criterion—whether Conner could be rehabilitated before

juvenile court jurisdiction expires (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(B)(i))—the court concluded that

the People had not carried their burden of proof. The court reasoned that there was

conflicting evidence about Conner’s potential to grow and mature, and the People had not

proven that there was insufficient time to rehabilitate Conner. The criterion therefore did

not support transfer to criminal court.

As to third criterion—previous delinquent history (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(C)(i))—the

court found that Conner’s delinquent history was serious and escalating. The court

discussed his two other wardship petitions for the vandalism and DUI offenses, as well as

his school records showing that he was disciplined for various offenses. In addition,

there was evidence that he had been involved in the stabbing in 2021 and that he was

buying and selling firearms. Further, he told the undercover agents that the firearms

found at his residence had been used in crimes, and he said that he had been involved in

24 four murders. The court noted that it had “fully considered” the evidence of Conner’s

family and community environment and his childhood trauma. It also noted that the

probation officer did not have all of the information available to the court when she

determined that this criterion did not support transfer. The court concluded that the

People had carried their burden of proof with respect to the criterion, and the criterion

supported transferring Conner to criminal court.

Regarding the fourth criterion—the success of previous attempts by the juvenile

court to rehabilitate Conner (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(D)(i))—the court observed that there had

been only a limited attempt at probation intervention. But Conner had never received

treatment in a secure setting where individualized programming and counseling would be

available. The court concluded that the criterion did not support transfer to criminal

court.

Lastly, with respect to the fifth criterion—the circumstances and gravity of the

alleged offense (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(E)(i))—the court found that Conner’s conduct in the

shooting was “cruel and callous,” he “clearly understood the wrongfulness of his

actions,” and he was thinking clearly enough to take steps to avoid detection. The court

weighed the evidence regarding Conner’s childhood and trauma but concluded that “on

balance,” the evidence did not mitigate the gravity of the offense. The court therefore

determined that the criterion favored transfer to criminal court.

25 DISCUSSION

I. Substantial evidence supporting the transfer order

Conner argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by granting the transfer

motion, because the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the finding

that he was not amenable to rehabilitation while under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.

He contends that the evidence is insufficient because the court relied on unreliable

evidence, namely, the evidence regarding (1) the 2021 stabbing incident and (2) Conner’s

statement to the undercover agents that he was involved in four murders. The argument

lacks merit.

“We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of

discretion.” (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 165.) “‘The abuse of discretion

standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect

of a trial court’s ruling under review. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for

substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of

the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’” (Ibid.) “The juvenile

court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are findings of fact

reviewed for substantial evidence.” (Ibid.)

“Likewise, we review for substantial evidence the juvenile court’s ultimate finding

‘that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the

juvenile court.’ [Citation.] Because the juvenile court must make that finding by clear

and convincing evidence, we ‘determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains

26 substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of

high probability demanded by’ the clear and convincing evidence standard.” (Miguel R.,

supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 165, quoting Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989,

1005.) “In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in

support of the court’s findings.” (Miguel R., at p. 165.) “We do not reweigh the

evidence.” (In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211.)

Conner argues that there was “little to no evidence” that he was involved in the

2021 stabbing incident. He asserts that the People did not file any charges against him

for that incident, so the police reports regarding the incident were not reliable. In a

similar vein, Conner argues that there was no “value” in the evidence that he told the

undercover agents about his involvement in four murders. He contends that the evidence

was unreliable, because the court did not review the recording of the undercover

operation and therefore could not independently assess his credibility, and there was no

evidence corroborating his involvement in other murders.

By challenging the extent to which the court relied on the evidence, Conner

challenges the weight that the court gave the evidence. The argument fails, because we

do not reweigh evidence on appeal.

Moreover, whatever weight the court gave the challenged evidence, Conner fails

to show that the court’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The court

relied on the evidence of the stabbing when it concluded that Conner’s delinquent history

weighed in favor of transfer to criminal court. And the court relied on the evidence

27 regarding his involvement in other murders when it concluded that his criminal

sophistication and delinquent history weighed in favor of transfer. Conner addresses the

challenged evidence in isolation but does not discuss the ample additional evidence

supporting the court’s findings with respect to those two criteria.

The evidence of Conner’s criminal sophistication is substantial. The record shows

that the victim assaulted Bailey’s family members the day before the shooting. Conner

enthusiastically responded to Bailey’s request that he help “handle” a situation, saying

“Fuck yeah, pick me up.” When Bailey picked him up, Conner had taken steps to avoid

detection and conceal his identity—he was wearing dark clothing and a black ski mask,

and he left his cell phone at home so that his location could not be tracked through it. He

was also armed with a firearm. Conner questioned Bailey’s decision to involve his

girlfriend, and Conner told Bailey that he knew better than to bring her. Conner and

Bailey recruited Angel because they knew that he was unafraid to commit crimes. After

Abshear had been shot but was still making noise, Conner shot the victim two more times

as he lay on the ground. The court could reasonably infer that Conner participated

significantly in a planned killing that was retaliation for a prior assault on Bailey’s family

members.

Conner also took steps after the shooting that showed an intent to intimidate

witnesses or help Bailey and himself avoid prosecution. He talked to Bailey’s girlfriend

after she had spoken with law enforcement, and he demanded to know what she had told

the officers. He posted a photo on his public Instagram profile of Cody, calling Cody a

28 rat and thus suggesting that Cody was cooperating with law enforcement. Additionally,

he posted a photo of a deputy, called her a “‘bitch,’” and identified her as one of the

officers who arrested or detained him and Bailey.

The record shows that Conner was criminally sophisticated in other ways.

Officers found several firearms and a great deal of ammunition at his home. He had

hidden guns in his grandfather’s room, and he told the undercover agents that the guns

had been used in other crimes. His cell phone and social media contained numerous

photos of firearms, and conversations on his phone indicated that he was buying and

selling firearms and narcotics. That would explain the $700 in cash on his person when

officers detained him shortly after the shooting, and it would explain the large bundles of

cash on his Instagram profile. (His construction and restaurant jobs were less likely

explanations.) There is evidence that he was selling contraband as early as age 14, when

he told school staff that he intended to sell a nicotine vape pen. He also told the

undercover agents that he had recently sold three firearms. In addition, although there

was no evidence that Conner was a gang member, he admitted that he had been

associating with a gang since the age of 18. Even before that, when he was 17, he said

that he got along with members of the same gang. He went by several monikers,

including C-murder. Juvenile hall staff found a photo of a person displaying gang signs

in his room. Conner figured out that Bailey had not received one of his letters because

Conner had put gang tagging on it, so he resolved to erase that and resend the letter.

Finally, Conner told the undercover agents that he had been involved in several other

29 murders but had not been arrested for those. All of the foregoing evidence constitutes

substantial evidence that Conner’s criminal sophistication supported transfer. Conner’s

statement that he was involved in other murders is merely one piece of evidence

supporting the court’s finding.

Likewise, the record contains ample evidence that Conner’s delinquent history

supported transfer to criminal court. Under that criterion, the court may consider any

delinquent conduct that took place before the transfer order. (D.C. v. Superior Court

(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 441, 451-455.) That includes uncharged conduct, such as conduct

documented in a youth’s school records that does not result in a wardship petition. (Ibid.)

Conner’s school records show that from 2018 to 2020, he received discipline for

disrespecting a substitute teacher, disrupting the classroom, using offensive language

with a security guard, harassment or bullying on the basis of race, mutual combat, and

possessing vape pens. He was suspended for the mutual combat and vape pen incidents.

His delinquent conduct escalated after that. He was on probation for the felony

vandalism offense when he committed the alleged murder (in May 2023) and the DUI

offense (in July 2023). Although the DUI offense was a misdemeanor, it was relatively

serious. Conner’s blood test showed that he was under the influence of both alcohol and

marijuana. He crashed his car into a parked car and sustained significant injuries that

required surgery, and the offense carried the potential for serious injuries to other drivers

or pedestrians. With respect to the vandalism offense, he threw a rock at a car window.

There is also the evidence that he was buying and selling firearms and narcotics.

30 And although Conner was not the perpetrator of the stabbing incident, the victim

reported that Conner was with the perpetrator, B.S., and B.S.’s friends surrounded the

victim and tried to block his escape. Conner has a forearm tattoo dedicated to someone

with B.S.’s first name, whom he professed to love like a brother. The court could

reasonably infer that Conner was willing to help B.S. commit a stabbing, just as he was

willing to help his close friend Bailey commit the shooting. Finally, there is the evidence

that Conner was involved in several other murders for which he had not been arrested.

On this record, the court’s finding that Conner’s delinquent history weighed in favor of

transfer is supported by substantial evidence, and not merely the evidence that Conner

challenges.

In sum, the record contains substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings.

Conner challenges the weight that the court gave certain evidence, but we do not reweigh

the evidence on appeal.

II. Testimony regarding Conner’s credibility

Manjarrez testified that Conner’s statements about his involvement in other

murders were “credible enough” for Manjarrez to forward the information to the relevant

law enforcement agencies. Conner argues that the court prejudicially erred by admitting

improper opinion testimony regarding the credibility of the statements. We conclude that

any error was harmless.

“Lay opinion about the veracity of particular statements by another is inadmissible

on that issue.” (People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 744 (Melton).) “With limited

31 exceptions, the fact finder, not the witnesses, must draw the ultimate inferences from the

evidence.” (Ibid.)

As a preliminary matter, the People argue that Conner forfeited the argument,

because he did not object to the credibility testimony at the transfer hearing. Conner

points out that he objected to other credibility testimony—he objected to Manjarrez’s

testimony that Conner was not being truthful during his interview with Manjarrez. The

court overruled that objection, so Conner argues that any further objection would have

been futile. In the alternative, Conner argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance

by failing to object.

We assume for the sake of argument that Conner has not forfeited his challenge

and that the challenged testimony constituted improper opinion testimony. Regardless,

any error did not prejudice him.

It is not reasonably probable that Conner would have obtained a more favorable

result absent the credibility testimony. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

That is because the record contains extensive independent evidence that Conner’s

statements about the other murders were credible. Manjarrez testified that Conner

provided detailed information about the other murders. “[T]estimony about the details, or

lack thereof, in [Conner’s] information was entirely proper, since these were facts bearing

on its credibility.” (Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 745.) Moreover, other evidence

corroborated much of the information that Conner disclosed to the undercover agents

about this case, and Manjarrez testified that Conner disclosed nonpublic information. For

32 instance, Conner told the agents that Bailey recruited him for the shooting after the victim

assaulted Bailey’s grandfather. He told them that Bailey’s girlfriend was present. He

told them that another shooter, Angel, used a .380-caliber firearm. He told them that he

had recently sold three firearms, and he had hidden firearms in his grandfather’s room.

Law enforcement interviews with the other participants in the shooting showed that the

shooting was retaliation for the victim’s assault on Bailey’s family and that Bailey

brought his girlfriend to the crime scene. The crime scene investigation revealed that one

of the shooters used a .380-caliber firearm. Officers found firearms in a bag in Conner’s

grandfather’s room when they searched the home, and the search of his cell phone

revealed conversations about buying and selling firearms.

The court could reasonably conclude from the corroborating evidence that Conner

was being truthful with the undercover agents about this case. If he was being truthful

about his involvement in this case, then the court could reasonably infer that he was being

truthful about the other murders. And the deputy district attorney could have asked the

court to draw those reasonable inferences in closing argument, even without Manjarrez’s

opinion that Conner’s statements were credible. Given the extensive independent

evidence that the statements were credible, it is not reasonably probable that the court

would have evaluated Conner’s credibility differently in the absence of Manjarrez’s

credibility opinion.

Moreover, even if the court would have given less weight to Conner’s statements

about the other murders in the absence of Manjarrez’s credibility opinion, it is not

33 reasonably probable that the court would have denied the transfer motion. As explained

in part I of the Discussion, ante, the evidence supporting transfer to criminal court was

ample. The court did not rely only on Conner’s statement that he was involved in other

murders. Rather, it relied on plenty of other evidence showing that Conner’s high degree

of criminal sophistication, the circumstances and gravity of the alleged offense, and

Conner’s delinquent history weighed in favor of transfer. Given all of the other evidence

supporting the court’s ruling, there is no reasonable probability that the court would have

denied the transfer motion if it had given less weight to Conner’s statements about the

other murders.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the court did not prejudicially

err by admitting Manjarrez’s opinion regarding Conner’s credibility.

III. The corpus delicti rule

Conner argues that the court violated the corpus delicti rule by relying on his

statements that he was involved in other murders. The argument lacks merit.

“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body

of the crime itself—i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal

agency as its cause. In California, it has traditionally been held, the prosecution cannot

satisfy this burden by relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions,

or admissions of the defendant.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169,

italics omitted.) The corpus delicti rule thus “requires corroboration of the defendant’s

extrajudicial utterances insofar as they indicate a crime was committed, and forces the

34 People to supply, as part of their burden of proof in every criminal prosecution, some

evidence of the corpus delicti aside from, or in addition to, such statements.” (Id. at

p. 1178, italics omitted.)

However, the corpus delicti rule does not apply to evidence of uncharged acts in

criminal trials, except in the penalty phase of capital trials. (People v. Davis (2008) 168

Cal.App.4th 617, 634, 638; see People v. Martinez (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 537, 545 [“the

corpus delicti rule has never been applied to other-crimes evidence introduced for

impeachment purposes in the guilt phase of a trial”]; cf. People v. Monette (1994) 25

Cal.App.4th 1572, 1575 [the corpus delicti rule does not apply to proof of alleged

probation violations, because “the probation revocation hearing differs so substantially

from a criminal prosecution”].)

Conner argues that the court erred by relying on his statements to the undercover

agents that he was involved in other murders, because there was no evidence

corroborating his involvement in other murders. But even if the transfer hearing were a

criminal trial, the rule requiring independent corroboration does not apply to evidence of

uncharged acts. The argument therefore fails.6

6 Conner argues that the transfer hearing was rendered fundamentally unfair by the cumulative effect of all the claimed errors. The argument fails because there are not multiple “errors to cumulate.” (People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 417.) We have assumed only one claimed error, and Conner has not shown any other errors. 35 DISPOSITION

The order transferring Conner to criminal court is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

FIELDS J.