Heck Van Tran

Case record: Heck Van Tran

Status and procedural posture

Heck Van Tran was sentenced to death on August 28, 1989.

Parties and court history

The Supreme Court of Tennessee issued an opinion in the case, including a concurring and dissenting opinion and a dissenting opinion. The case involved multiple convictions of felony murder and multiple death sentences imposed by a jury.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee docket and court details included: Supreme Court of Tennessee, September 27, 1993; State of Tennessee, appellee, v. Heck Van Tran, defendant-appellant. The case referenced the Criminal Court, Shelby County, Hon. L. T. Lafferty, Judge. Lower Court Nos. 88-01443, 88-01444, 88-01445, and 88-04384 were listed.

The jury convicted Heck Van Tran and fixed punishment at death for each offense, and also convicted him of robbery by use of a deadly weapon, for which the trial court imposed a 30 years imprisonment sentence as a standard offender, Range I, to be served concurrently with the death sentences.

The offence

On the afternoon of October 20, 1987, Arthur Lee, Amy Lee, and Kai Yin Chuey were found dead in the Jade East Restaurant in Memphis. The restaurant had not yet opened for business that day, and the victims had apparently been inside making preparations for the evening.

Jewelry with a wholesale value of $25,000 had been taken from the restaurant.

The convictions included felony (robbery) murder and premeditated murders of Kai Yin Chuey, Amy Lee, and Arthur Lee, and also robbery with a deadly weapon of Ging Sam Lee.

Heck Van Tran was convicted of three counts of felony murder and fixed his punishment at death for each offense.

The jury found two aggravating circumstances in all three cases:

1. The murder was especially cruel in that it involved depravity of mind.
2. The Defendant committed “mass murder.” T.C.A. § 39-2-203(i)(5) and (12) (1982).

He was also convicted of robbery by use of a deadly weapon, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment as a standard offender, Range I, to be served concurrently with the above sentences.

Victims and related persons

Deceased victims

• Arthur Lee, 24.
• Amy Lee, 23.
• Kai Yin Chuey, 70.

Surviving witness affected by the robbery

• Ging Sam Lee, 75 at the time of trial; she survived the robbery-murders.

Ging Sam Lee had lived in the United States for thirty years and was the only surviving eyewitness to the robbery-murders.

Family relationships described in the case

• The victims were all related and worked in the restaurant, which had been owned and operated by the Lee family for years.
• The family emigrated from China.
• Arthur Lee managed the restaurant for his father, the owner.
• Amy Lee was married to Arthur’s brother, Chester Lee.
• Kai Yin Chuey was Arthur’s maternal grandmother.
• Ging Sam Lee was Arthur’s paternal grandmother and survived the robbery.
• Jerry Lee was identified as Arthur Lee’s brother and grandson of Mrs. Chuey and Mrs. Lee.

Timeline

• October 20, 1987 — Arthur Lee, Amy Lee, and Kai Yin Chuey were found dead in the Jade East Restaurant in Memphis; jewelry valued at $25,000 was taken.
• April 28, 1988 — Heck Van Tran was arrested in Houston, Texas; he was advised of Miranda rights.
• May 2, 1988 — Heck Van Tran’s written statement was taken after he had been advised of his rights a third time.
• August 28, 1989 — Heck Van Tran was sentenced to death.
• April 1989 — A market researcher conducted a poll of 428 Shelby County residents about the case.
• September 27, 1993 — The Supreme Court of Tennessee issued its opinion and discussed the issues raised by Heck Van Tran.
• December 7, 1993 — The death sentence would be carried out as provided by law on the 7th day of December, 1993, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee or other proper authority.

Background of Heck Van Tran

Heck Van Tran had worked at the Jade East Restaurant in Memphis for a few weeks before he joined three other young men in robbing the restaurant in 1987.

He admitted shooting two of the three employees who were killed in the robbery.

Heck Van Tran was born on November 8, 1966. His mother was Vietnamese; his father was an American serviceman who died in Vietnam in 1968.

He started school when he was six years old but stopped when Saigon fell.

In 1983 a Catholic relief agency resettled him and his mother in Memphis. He briefly attended school before dropping out in 1984.

The case record described his mother’s testimony that he was presently 21 years of age at the time of her testimony, and that he had been ill as a child and had not spoken until he was six. Her testimony also described his limited English education and his comprehension level being below the fourth grade.

The record also stated that the Defendant’s ability to read was limited and that he had difficulty understanding the meaning of certain words in the warnings of rights.

Investigation and evidence

Police investigation included physical evidence discovered at the restaurant. Small pieces of jewelry were scattered on the floor of the restaurant and in the rear parking lot.

Police collected six spent .22 caliber cartridges from the restaurant floor.

An officer videotaped the entire inside and outside of the Jade East Restaurant.

Another officer took photographs showing the location of the three bodies, the exterior of the restaurant, and the parking lot.

Jewelry value and removal

On the day of the robbery, uninsured jewelry with a wholesale value of about $25,000 was stolen from the restaurant office.

Jerry Lee identified certain jewelry cases taken in the robbery, one of which had Defendant’s fingerprint on it.

Confession and statements

The State’s critical proof included:

• A statement taken from Heck Van Tran in which he admitted his involvement in the crimes.
• Heck Van Tran’s fingerprint on one of the jewelry cases taken during the robbery.
• Eyewitness identification of Heck Van Tran by Ging Sam Lee.

After his arrest by the Houston, Texas, police on April 28, 1988, Heck Van Tran gave a statement acknowledging his role in the robbery and murders.

In the confession described in the opinion, Heck Van Tran stated that he had worked briefly at the Jade East Restaurant a month or two before the crimes, and that Mr. Lee had fired him because “he didn’t like me” and “said I cooked too many egg rolls.”

He implicated Hung Van Chung, Kong Chung Bounnam, and Duc Phuoc Doan in the robbery.

He stated that the four men entered the back door of the restaurant and he talked to Arthur Lee “for about ten minutes before there was any shooting.”

He described the sequence of events involving the guns and shootings, including:

• “Mr. Lee grabbed Nam’s [Bounnam’s] hand with the gun and elbowed him in the chest. Nam fell back and hit the old lady.”
• “The old lady fell on me and when she hit me it caused the gun to go off.”
• “I don't know what I hit that time.”
• “Mr. Lee then kicked Hung . I heard Hung Chung shoot one or two times and then Mr. Lee tried to grab the gun and Hung Chung shoot him.”
• “While Mr. Lee was trying to get Hung [Chung's] gun, I told him not to or I would have to hurt him.”
• “He turned and tried to get my gun and I shot him.”
• “He fell and was moving around and I shot him in the face somewhere.”
• “Then I walk through the door where they kept the money and gold.”
• “I looked up and saw the old lady roll over. I thought she had something in her hand. I shot her in the back of the head.”
• “While the Defendant was in the office collecting the jewelry, he heard more shots.”
• “He stated that he did not know "who was shooting or what" or who had shot "the young girl," Amy Lee.”

He also described observing Bounnam holding Ging Sam Lee and telling Bounnam not to hurt her:

• “Outside the restaurant, the Defendant discovered that Bounnam had been shot in the left leg near the groin.”
• “Bounnam claimed the Defendant had shot him.”
• “The group fled in Bounnam's Camaro to an acquaintance's apartment.”
• “From there, the Defendant, Bounnam and Chung drove Chung's car to Washington, D.C.”
• “Bounnam's Camaro was left in Memphis.”
• “Doan remained in Tennessee.”
• “From Washington, the trio drove to Houston, Texas.”
• “Once in Houston, the Defendant went to the Saigon Pool Hall and talked with a Vietnamese man about selling some gold.”
• “The man took the gold and returned in about ten minutes with $4,000.00.”
• “The Defendant paid the man $200 and divided the rest three ways.”
• “Later, Bounnam flew to North Carolina and Chung went to Dallas with a friend.”

Fingerprints

The record described that Heck Van Tran was fingerprinted on his return to Memphis, and that the print of his left ring finger matched a latent fingerprint found on one of the jewelry cases.

Eyewitness identification and related testimony

Ging Sam Lee testified through a translator. Her testimony included:

• “three or four oriental men had robbed the restaurant and identified Heck Van Tran as one the robbers.”
• She identified Hung Van Chung as another of the men involved.
• She stated that Chung, while not an employee, had helped out at the restaurant.
• She stated she was beaten and robbed.
• She heard gunfire but did not see anyone being shot.
• She was knocked unconscious; when she awoke, she saw a body lying in the restaurant.

In addition, the record described multiple witnesses:

• One witness testified that on October 20, 1987, he was driving into the parking lot of the Jade East Restaurant when he saw a blue 1970 Camaro leaving; he identified Bounnam as the driver and noted at least two passengers.
• Another witness, Bounnam’s brother, testified that at eight o’clock on the morning of the robbery, his brother and Heck Van Tran drove him to work in his brother’s blue Camaro and he had not seen his brother since that time.
• Another witness stated he knew Heck Van Tran, Bounnam, Doan and Chung, testified that Bounnam owned a blue Camaro, and testified that on the day of the Jade East robbery he saw jewelry boxes like those taken from the restaurant in the dumpster outside his apartment.
• Another witness testified he was at a friend’s apartment and saw Heck Van Tran trying to get a bullet out of Bounnam’s leg; Chung and Doan were also present at the apartment.

Forensic pathology and firearms evidence

Dr. O. C. Smith testified as an expert in forensic pathology and described autopsies on the three victims.

Amy Lee

Dr. Smith testified that Amy Lee died as a result of a contact gunshot wound to the head.

He described a contact wound as one in which the muzzle of the weapon is up against the skin surface at the time it is fired.

The bullet entered Amy Lee’s right forehead about a half inch below the top of her head and was recovered in the left back of the head after going through the brain.

After qualification as an expert in firearms and firearms identification, Dr. Smith testified that the recovered projectile was a .22 caliber bullet.

Kai Yin Chuey

Dr. Smith testified that Kai Yin Chuey had bruises under the right collarbone, over the right chest and breast region, on the left upper arm, at the left elbow, and over the knees, all of which were made while she was alive.

He testified she died as a result of being shot twice:

• Once through the jawbone and neck thereby severing her windpipe, with this wound being six inches or less from the muzzle of the gun.
• Once through the back of the head through the brain as a contact wound.

Arthur Lee

Dr. Smith testified that Arthur Lee died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds.

He described eight wound tracks on Arthur Lee’s body, including:

• to the back of the right hand,
• to the right chest,
• to the right side of the jaw,
• a grazing wound to the left side of the neck,
• a wound to the back left shoulder at the neck,
• a near wound to the right back,
• a wound to the back of the upper right arm,
• and a contact gunshot wound to the right temple.

He identified one of the recovered projectiles as being a .22 caliber bullet.

He also testified that there was no way to determine the sequence in which these wounds had been inflicted.

Firearms examiner testimony

A TBI firearms examiner testified that two .22 lead bullets—one recovered from Mrs. Chuey’s head and the other from Mr. Lee’s brain—could have been fired from the revolver used by Heck Van Tran in the robbery.

The examiner also testified that the two bullets were so mutilated and damaged that he could not positively state that they had been fired from that weapon.

Convictions and sentencing

Felony murder convictions

The jury found Heck Van Tran guilty on three counts of felony murder and fixed punishment at death for each offense.

The opinion stated that the Supreme Court of Tennessee:

• affirmed Heck Van Tran’s conviction of felony murder and his sentence of death as to Kai Yin Chuey,
• affirmed his convictions of felony murder as to Amy Lee and Arthur Lee but reversed his sentences as to them and remanded for resentencing.

Robbery by use of a deadly weapon

In addition to the felony murder counts, the jury convicted Heck Van Tran of robbery by use of a deadly weapon.

The trial court sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment as a standard offender, Range I, to be served concurrently with the above sentences.

Appeals issues addressed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Heck Van Tran appealed challenging, inter alia:

• sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him,
• the failure of the trial court to suppress certain statements,
• the use of a relative to act as an interpreter for an eyewitness,
• the introduction of a video tape and color photographs,
• refusal of change of venue and individual voir dire,
• alleged errors in the judge’s jury instructions,
• and the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Sufficiency of evidence and suppression of statements

Heck Van Tran argued that the evidence admitted at trial might be insufficient if certain evidence were held inadmissible, including his confession or eyewitness identification by Ging Sam Lee.

He also argued that evidence was insufficient to support the sentence of death because it did not support the two aggravating circumstances found by the jury.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed a motion to suppress confession, stating that it affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion.

Motion to suppress: Miranda waiver and language

Heck Van Tran asserted that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress written and oral statements given to authorities in Texas, including assertions related to limited English comprehension and inability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver.

The trial court made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The opinion described evidence considered, including:

• his responses to officers during Miranda warnings,
• his acknowledgment of why he was arrested (“For the shooting in Memphis.”),
• his response that he understood English,
• his responses when advised of rights and warnings,
• and his written statement’s logical narrative of the offense.

The opinion described findings by the trial court that he had sufficient knowledge of English to waive his Miranda rights.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that Heck Van Tran voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.

The opinion also discussed that language difficulties were considered in determining a valid waiver, and it reviewed the totality of the circumstances.

Change of venue and individual voir dire

Heck Van Tran argued that extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity denied him a fair trial.

The case had been featured on the television program “America’s Most Wanted,” which aired locally in Shelby County.

Heck Van Tran filed pretrial motions for change of venue and for individual voir dire.

A hearing on the motion for change of venue included testimony from a market researcher about a poll of 428 Shelby County residents in April 1989, showing almost 90 percent had heard something about the case and 29.5 percent had seen the “America’s Most Wanted” episode.

The trial court denied the motion for change of venue with a proviso to reconsider if difficulties arose in finding an untainted jury.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee found no showing that the majority of prospective jurors were extensively exposed to prejudicial pretrial publicity and held that the defendant had not carried his burden of showing clear abuse of discretion.

Interpreter issue

Heck Van Tran objected to the State using Jerry Lee as an interpreter for his paternal grandmother, Ging Sam Lee.

He argued that allowing Lee to act as interpreter would be highly prejudicial.

Ging Sam Lee did not speak English and understood very little of the language and spoke a rural dialect of Chinese called “Hoi San.”

The trial judge conducted a jury-out hearing and permitted Jerry Lee to interpret.

Jerry Lee testified, including statements:

• “I understand that this will be recorded, and I will not add anything to it.”
• “I would not say anything more than what my grandmother will say.”

The trial court noted that Jerry Lee performed his duties “in a neutral, detached way” in a prior trial.

The opinion explained that the Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed that interpreter appointment involved discretion, and that the defendant had not demonstrated translation inaccuracy or prejudice.

The opinion also noted that audio recording of testimony was available, and addressed concerns about needing a neutral interpreter, but held no showing of prejudice.

Admission of revolver

Heck Van Tran objected to admission of a .22 caliber revolver into evidence on the grounds that no proper predicate had been laid.

The opinion described that the proof showed Heck Van Tran stated he shot two victims with a .22 caliber revolver, which belonged to Huynh and which he returned to Huynh.

Spent .22 casings were found at the restaurant, and Dr. Smith and a firearms examiner provided testimony about bullets and fragmentation.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee found no error in admitting the revolver.

Admission of video tape and photographs

Heck Van Tran objected to admission of a videotape of the crime scene made by Officer Garner.

The videotape depicted the interior and exterior of the Jade East Restaurant and showed the victims as they were found.

The opinion described that the trial court agreed that the narration included inadmissible conclusions but instructed jurors to disregard the narrator’s conclusions.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the visual portion, but that allowing the jury to hear narration was error; however, the opinion held the error was harmless.

The opinion also addressed admission of color photographs of the deceased victims taken at the scene and found no abuse of discretion.

Jury instructions during penalty phase

Heck Van Tran argued error in the jury instructions during the penalty phase, including variation from the language of T.C.A. § 39-2-203.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee found no error as the instructions were consistent with the Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions and prior approvals.

He also challenged failure to instruct aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt or must substantially outweigh them, and the court rejected that argument based on prior precedent.

Mass murder aggravating circumstance

Heck Van Tran challenged the jury instruction on the “mass murder” aggravating circumstance under T.C.A. § 39-2-203(i)(12) (1982).

The opinion quoted the statutory definition requiring murder of three or more persons within Tennessee within forty-eight months in a similar fashion in a common scheme or plan.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the trial court was not in error when it charged the mass murder aggravating circumstance at sentencing.

Cruel-depravity instruction and harmless error analysis

Heck Van Tran argued the trial court erred in charging the jury that the murders were especially cruel in that they involved depravity of mind.

The aggravating circumstance language referenced T.C.A. § 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982) providing: “The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind.”

The trial court and prosecutor concluded there was no torture and charged an edited form: “The murder was especially cruel in that it involved depravity of mind.”

The Supreme Court of Tennessee held:

• Any error in omitting “heinous” and “atrocious” was harmless.
• The issue critical to a finding under (i)(5) was “depravity of mind.”
• The evidence was insufficient to establish depravity of mind as to Arthur Lee and Amy Lee, but sufficient as to Kai Yin Chuey.
• For Arthur Lee and Amy Lee, the court reversed death sentences and remanded for resentencing after a harmless error analysis indicated the error was not harmless.

The opinion described the separate analysis of each victim:

• Arthur Lee: multiple gunshot wounds, testimony about the struggle, and the defendant’s confession to inflicting two wounds; the court held insufficient to establish “depravity of mind” beyond that in first-degree murder.
• Amy Lee: died as a result of a single contact gunshot wound; the court held insufficient to establish “depravity of mind.”
• Kai Yin Chuey: a helpless 74-year-old woman shot in the back of the head after being already shot; the court held this evinced depravity of mind and supported the aggravating circumstance.

Other sentencing instruction and constitutionality issues

Heck Van Tran alleged errors including:

• anti-sympathy instruction issues,
• unanimity of verdict and mitigating circumstances,
• an instruction that “the sentence shall be death,” and
• failure to instruct the jury to presume the defendant would actually serve life if sentenced to life.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee rejected these challenges based on prior precedent.

Heck Van Tran also raised multiple constitutionality challenges to Tennessee’s death penalty statute, and the Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed and rejected them, referencing prior decisions.

Proportionality review

The opinion discussed proportionality review under T.C.A. § 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) (formerly T.C.A. § 39-2-205(c)(4)).

Because it remanded Arthur Lee and Amy Lee for resentencing, the court forewent proportionality review in those cases.

It reviewed the killing of Kai Yin Chuey and held the penalty imposed was not excessive or disproportionate.

The opinion described:

• the killing as involving the intentional and senseless killing of a helpless elderly victim during a robbery,
• the court’s consideration of the defendant’s good employment record,
• cooperation with the FBI and expression of remorse,
• the defendant’s age and lack of prior criminal background,
• the defendant’s personal history including his childhood, educational problems,
• and the court’s conclusion that after the first killing, he chose without provocation to shoot a second, unresisting victim in the back of the head.

The opinion held that imposition of the death penalty was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

It further found, under the directives of the statute, that the sentence of death for Kai Yin Chuey was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion, that evidence supported the jury’s findings of two statutory aggravating circumstances, and that evidence supported the absence of any mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.

Outcome

The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed:

• Heck Van Tran’s convictions of felony murder for Amy Lee and Arthur Lee, but reversed his death sentences for those victims and remanded for resentencing.
• Heck Van Tran’s conviction of felony murder and his sentence of death as to Kai Yin Chuey.

The opinion stated the sentence of death would be carried out as provided by law on December 7, 1993, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or by other proper authority.

Other details

Statements and testimony involving juror voir dire

The opinion described that 48 prospective jurors were voir dired, and that the only prospective juror who said she had seen the “America’s Most Wanted” episode featuring the crime was Peggy Ingram, who was excused for cause.

Dissenting and concurring reasoning

The case included:

• a concurring and dissenting opinion by Lyle Reid, C.J., and
• a dissenting opinion by Martha Craig Daughtrey, Justice,
• plus references to separate opinions by Reid, C.J., Daughtrey, J.

The concurring and dissenting opinion by Lyle Reid stated that he would reverse the sentence of death for the murders of Amy Lee and Arthur Lee and impose life imprisonment upon each conviction, and he also stated he would reverse the sentence of death for the murder of Kai Yin Chuey and impose a sentence of life imprisonment upon each conviction. It argued that the evidence was insufficient to support aggravating circumstances and that the death sentence was disproportionate, including references to mass murder and disproportionality.

The dissenting opinion by Martha Craig Daughtrey challenged several aspects of the appeal, describing concerns about failure to permit individual voir dire, failure to mute audio on the videotape, and failure to provide an independent unbiased interpreter; it also described a faulty instruction regarding the “especially cruel” aggravating circumstance at the sentencing phase. It discussed the meaning of “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” the distinction between “cruelty” and “depravity of mind,” and asserted constitutional vagueness and related United States Supreme Court cases. It concluded that it would require resentencing or setting aside the death sentences and imposing life sentences.

In the concurring and dissenting and dissenting portions, the opinion also quoted extended discussions, including language from State v. Williams, and referenced the definitions of “heinous,” “atrocious,” “cruel,” “torture,” and “depravity” from the cited analysis.