Page 1
Harmless Error Doctrine Preserves Wife-Slaying Conviction
Evidentiary Errors Weren’t Sufficient to Upset Judgment in Case of Man Who Fatally Strangled His Ex-Wife,
Tossed Her Body Off Cruise Ship, Opinion Says, Declaring Evidence of Guilt to Be Overwhelming
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that three evidentiary errors did not compel reversing the murder conviction of a California lawyer who strangled his ex-wife while they were on a Mediterranean cruise, tossed her body overboard, then feigned surprise that when he awoke, she wasn’t in bed, and reported her missing.
“Although we concluded there were three evidentiary errors, those errors were harmless,” Presiding Justice Kathleen O’Leary said in Wednesday’s opinion, adding:
“This was not a close case.”
The defendant, Lonnie Loren Kocontes, was convicted on June 15, 2020, of the first-degree murder of his former spouse, Micki Kanesaki on May 26, 2006, with a finding of a special circumstance: that Kocontes committed the slaying for financial gain. Although divorced—and notwithstanding that he had remarried—Kocontes and Kanesaki had reconciled and each, in wills, named the other the estate-beneficiary, with Kocontes standing to profit by more than $1 million in light of joint bank accounts and real property that would become his, alone.
Judicially established facts in the case are apt to conjure up a recollection of suspicions that were aroused—but never validated—by circumstances surrounding the 1981 death of actress Natalie Wood, who drowned in the waters off Catalina Island after an argument on their yacht with her husband, actor Robert Wagner—and the 1965 death-by-drowning of the wealthy bride of then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas Yager (now deceased).
|
|
|
Above is a souvenir photo taken onboard the Island Escape en route from Spain to Italy. The man, Lonnie Loren Kocontes, fatally stranged the woman, ex-wife Micki Kanesaki before the ship landed in Naples. The Court of Appeal on Tuesday affirmed his conviction of first-degree murder for financial gain. |
Fact Situation
O’Leary recited that Kocontes wed Kanesaki in the mid-1990s; in 1999, litigation was anticipated against Kocontes based on alleged sexual conduct by him with a female, and the couple divorced “to protect their assets” but continued to cohabitate; in July 2005, Kocontes married Amy Nguyen; and “[o]ne day,” Kanesaki went to the marital abode of her ex-husband and his new wife and persuaded him to return to her.
A few days later, O’Leary said, Kocontes conferred with his wife. The jurist provided dialogue (without mentioning the source) resembling an exchange drafted by a Hollywood script-writer: Kocontes said there was “only way is to get rid of” Kanesaki; Nguyen asked, “How?” and Kocontes replied: “To make her silent forever.”
On May 2, 2006, Kocontes, residing in Orange County, booked passage for himself and Kanesaki from Spain to Italy on the Island Escape, a former car ferry that had been converted into a cruise ship—but not a luxury one, and not one taken by Americans, the marketing of it being the United Kingdom. It had the advantage, to Kocontes, of a shoddy security/surveillance system.
On the day after the drowning, Kanesaki’s body was found by persons on another ship. An autopsy performed in Italy showed she had died from being strangled.
It was not until June 14, 2013—seven years after the murder—that Kocontes was indicted. Following his conviction by a jury, he was sentenced on Sept. 18, 2020 by Orange Superior Court Judge Richard King to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Substantial Evidence Acknowledged
On appeal, the defendant acknowledged that substantial evidence supported the verdict, but nonetheless argued for a reversal, citing faulty evidentiary rulings.
“Although the trial court erred by admitting evidence,” O’Leary wrote, “Kocontes was not prejudiced, and his constitutional rights were not infringed.”
Evidence of the defendant’s “inappropriate relationship with a female” in 1999 should have beeen barred because it “lacked relevancy and was unduly prejudicial,” the presiding justice said. Testimony of a forensic pathologist that the autopsy he performed on Kanesaki showed she had not ingested drugs or alcohol was improperly admitted based on a lack of foundation, she added.
And emails Kanesaki sent to a friend on March 2, 2005, telling of her distrust of her then-husband when it came to money was improperly admitted under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, she said, because “Kanesaki’s state of mind as to their financial situation in March 2005 was not particularly probative 14 months later.”
But the 1999 incident, the autopsy findings and the emails did not add up to “the damning evidence Kocontes portrays them to be,” O’Leary declared, remarking:
“The damning evidence was Kocontes’s greed, his incriminating statements to Nguyen, his selection of a converted car ferry with non-existent security systems, and most importantly Kanesaki’s extensive injuries to her head and neck. We are not persuaded, therefore, the errors, whether considered individually or cumulatively, led to an unfair trial or a miscarriage of justice.”
Writ Petitions, Appeals
O’Leary noted:
“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.”
At one point, an Orange Superior Court judge dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the murder having occurred on the high seas, but the charges were re-filed. On July 29, 2013, Orange Superior Court Judge Gregg L. Prickett held that the court did have juridiction pursuant to Penal Code §778a(a), which provides:
“(a) Whenever a person, with intent to commit a crime, does any act within this state in execution or part execution of that intent, which culminates in the commission of a crime, either within or without this state, the person is punishable for that crime in this state in the same manner as if the crime had been committed entirely within this state.”
Rejecting Kocontes’s argument that the statute applies only to crimes consummated in other states, O’Leary wrote:
“Based on the plain language of the statute, the crime may culminate anywhere outside California. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines ‘without’ to mean, among other things, ‘outside of a particular place.’…Subdivision (a) includes no limitation as to whether ‘without’ is federal land, a United States state or territory, a foreign country, or the high seas. California case law supports the conclusion subdivision (a) does not limit jurisdiction to other states….The Orange County Superior Court had jurisdiction over a murder committed off the coast of Italy so long as de minimis preparatory acts were committed in Orange County….Kocontes does not dispute there was sufficient evidence of de minimis Orange County preparatory acts.”
The case is People v. Kocontes, 2022 S.O.S. 6248.
Kocontes had also been charged with attempting to solicit a “hit” on Nguyen while he was in custody but in light of his life sentence, the charge was dropped.
On Jan. 8, 2021, Kocontes was suspended from law practice in California pending final resolution of his conviction.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company