- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Lookout in Notorious 'Honor Roll Murder' Seeks to Overturn Conviction
Kirn Young Kim claims he didn't believe the killing would actually happen, despite serving as a lookout.
Published on Mar. 4, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
Three decades after the high-profile 'honor roll murder' of a 17-year-old in Orange County, the man convicted of serving as a lookout during the slaying is seeking to overturn his murder conviction. Kirn Young Kim, who was 16 at the time, argues he didn't believe the plot to kill Stuart Tay would actually be carried out, despite hearing the plan and serving as a lookout. Kim's attorney argues the plan was 'unbelievable' and 'hastily thrown together', while the prosecution claims Kim was fully aware and intentionally aided the killers.
Why it matters
The 'honor roll murder' case drew widespread attention when a group of academically-gifted teens from well-off families were convicted of killing one of their own. Kim's case highlights changes in state law that make it harder to convict someone as an accomplice if they didn't directly participate in the killing, raising questions about criminal responsibility and the role of the 'lookout' in such cases.
The details
In 1992, Robert Chan orchestrated the killing of 17-year-old Stuart Tay after the two had a falling out over a plan to rob a computer salesman. Chan convinced Tay to go to a Buena Park home, where Chan and another teen beat Tay with baseball bats and a sledgehammer for seven minutes while he begged for help. Chan then forced Tay to drink rubbing alcohol and sealed his mouth with duct tape, causing him to choke on his own vomit before being buried in a makeshift grave. Kim, who was 16 at the time, was sitting in a car down the street serving as a lookout during the killing.
- On New Year's Eve 1992, Stuart Tay was killed.
- Kim was convicted and served more than a decade in prison before being paroled.
- Kim has been working for the past seven years to overturn his murder conviction.
The players
Kirn Young Kim
A 16-year-old at the time who was convicted of murder for serving as a lookout during the killing of Stuart Tay, and is now seeking to overturn his conviction.
Robert Chan
The ringleader who orchestrated the plot to kill Stuart Tay after a falling out over a plan to rob a computer salesman.
Stuart Tay
The 17-year-old honors student who was killed by Chan and another teen in the 'honor roll murder' case.
What they’re saying
“It was basically an ad hoc, hastily thrown together, ridiculous plot hatched by a person (Chan) who was ostensibly the smartest of the group. It is not whether or not Mr. Chan said 'We are going to kill him (Tay) and put him in this hole,' it is whether he (Kim) believed it would come to fruition.”
— Ray Chen, Kim's attorney
“Defendant (Kim) knew what was going to happen, he intended to help it happen, and he played his role just like it was talked about. How many times did Robert Chan have to say he was going to kill Stuart Tay that day?”
— Brian Fitzpatrick, Prosecutor
What’s next
The judge has asked both attorneys to provide written briefs outlining their arguments in the coming weeks, and noted that whatever decision he makes will likely be heard by appeals court judges in the future.
The takeaway
This case highlights the evolving legal standards around criminal responsibility, particularly the role of accomplices who may not have directly participated in a killing. It raises questions about how much knowledge and intent is required to convict someone as an accessory to murder, and whether the 'lookout' in a crime can be held equally culpable as the direct perpetrators.


