A Fresno judge held Adam Canales to answer on all four counts in the deaths of Mang Yang and Eliza Yang.

Being held to answer means the judge found enough evidence for the case to go forward. It is not a conviction. Defense attorney Miles Harris asked the court to consider gross vehicular manslaughter. The judge sided with prosecutors on implied malice. A jury has not heard the case.

ABC30 Fresno reported Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2026, that a Fresno judge held Adam Canales to answer on all four counts after a two-day preliminary hearing. Prosecutors allege Canales caused the deaths of Mang Yang and Eliza Yang in October 2024, when he crashed into their Fresno home while fleeing law enforcement. "The defendant is held to answer on all four counts," the judge said, according to ABC30. The station reported the judge also said Tuesday, "Based on the evidence produced, the court finds there is reasonable, probable, and sufficient cause." That finding sends the case on. It does not decide it.

ABC30 reported the last witness was Fresno Police Detective Matthew Ames, who investigated the crash and analyzed the vehicle's movements before impact. Ames testified that Canales tried to brake moments before the collision but was going too fast to make the roadway safely. "The traffic would either have to turn north or south. In this case, the vehicle was unable to make a north or south turn and collided with the residence," Ames said, according to ABC30.

Defense attorney Miles Harris argued the evidence did not show the intent second-degree murder requires, ABC30 reported, and asked the court to consider a lesser charge such as gross vehicular manslaughter. "Nobody involved in that, including two officers that had considerable experience, foresaw or recognized the risk," Harris said, according to ABC30. "Otherwise, perhaps to those officers' credit, they wouldn't have engaged in a high-speed pursuit for a traffic stop." That is the defense account of the chase. It is an argument about what the officers could see, not a ruling that the pursuit was lawful or unlawful.

Deputy District Attorney Adam Christopherson pointed to what Canales said immediately after the crash. "Mr. Canales's immediate statement spontaneously to officers of 'Did I hit anybody? Did I hurt anybody?' shows that he was aware that the way he was driving was so dangerous that it was dangerous to human life," Christopherson said, according to ABC30. The judge agreed there was enough for the murder charges. "The record supports a finding that the defendant acted with conscious disregard for life, as would support an implied malice for second-degree murder," the judge said, according to ABC30. Implied malice, as the judge used it here, is the legal path the court found sufficient at a preliminary hearing. It is not a jury verdict.

ABC30 reported Canales is expected back in court in December, when the case moves toward a jury trial. A preliminary hearing asks whether prosecutors have enough evidence to go forward. It does not ask a jury whether the charges are proved. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.