Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Alejandro Hernandez was convicted in 2024 of first degree murder with use of a deadly weapon and sentenced to one year plus 25 years to life in state prison. The conviction arose from the November 10, 2021 killing of Jordan Parish, who had stolen beer from a Circle K in Rancho Cucamonga. Two nights earlier, Hernandez and his twin brother Alexis chased a cigarette thief from the same store; the thief pepper-sprayed them and brandished a knife. Hernandez testified that afterward he began carrying a knife to defend himself.
On the night of the killing, the brothers pursued Parish to a bus stop and then into a bowling alley, where they punched him in the stomach and chest. Witnesses testified Parish never fought back and hunched over protectively as the brothers surrounded him at the women's restroom threshold. Parish died from a four-inch-deep chest wound that fatally injured his heart and, per the medical examiner, required substantial force. The knife was never found; Hernandez said he handed it to a stranger while fleeing.
A recorder placed in the patrol car captured Hernandez telling Alexis he had defended him and urging they stick with their story. At trial Hernandez admitted stabbing Parish once but claimed he acted to protect Alexis and aimed for the stomach; he also admitted lying in parts of his testimony and police interviews. The defense showed Hernandez had ADHD and borderline intellectual disability, which a social worker said could increase impulsivity. Instructed on first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and defense of another, the jury convicted of first degree murder.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal applied the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, reviewing the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment for substantial evidence—reasonable, credible, and of solid value—supporting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs evidence and resolves conflicting inferences, and the appellant bears an enormous burden. The court applied the three Anderson categories for premeditation and deliberation—planning activity, motive, and manner of killing—and found sufficient evidence of all three.
On planning, Hernandez began carrying a knife after the November 8 confrontation and, knowing he had it, chose to chase Parish until he was cornered at the bathroom threshold despite outnumbering him. On motive, the jury could infer from his admitted duty to protect family and the store's employees, his desire to be a hero, and his continued pursuit despite witnesses saying Parish was not the aggressor, that he harbored animosity toward Parish. On manner of killing, the medical examiner testified the wound could have been inflicted by a left-handed stab directly into the heart of an upright victim—matching Hernandez's own account—and the court rejected the accidental-stabbing scenario as inconsistent with his testimony that Parish stood straight up.
The court rejected Hernandez's appellate claim that the killing was impulsive rather than deliberate, concluding the jury could reasonably find a calculated decision to arm himself and stab Parish with substantial force in a vital area. Because the verdict was supported by the evidence, the court affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A first degree murder conviction is affirmed on sufficiency review when substantial evidence supports all three Anderson factors: planning, motive, and manner of killing.
- Arming oneself after a prior confrontation and pursuing an outnumbered, non-aggressive victim into a cornered spot can be sufficient planning for premeditation and deliberation.
- A stated desire to be a hero and protect others, plus persistent pursuit of a victim witnesses described as non-aggressive, can support an inference of motive to kill.
- Medical examiner testimony that a fatal heart wound could result from a direct stab to an upright victim, corroborated by the defendant's own statements, can establish a manner of killing consistent with a preconceived design.
- An appellant cannot meet the enormous burden on sufficiency review by calling the killing impulsive when the record supports a calculated decision to arm and pursue the victim.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision shows how California appellate courts apply the Anderson framework to sustain first degree murder verdicts even in fast-moving confrontations, where the record contains credible evidence of advance arming, a discernible motive, and a deliberate fatal wound. It also underscores that a defendant's own recorded statements and trial testimony, including admissions of lying, can corroborate rejection of an impulsivity theory on appeal.