P. v. Contreras
Filed 9/28/10 P. v. Contreras CA4/1
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JUAN MANUEL CONTRERAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
D055908
(Super. Ct.
No. SWF016160)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Riverside
County, Timothy F. Freer, Judge. Affirmed.
Juan Contreras appeals from a
judgment convicting him of second degree
murder. He asserts the trial court
erred in (1) admitting hearsay evidence and (2) denying a new trial motion
based on juror misconduct. We find no reversible error and affirm the
judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
On the night of March 19,
2006,
Ricardo Orozco and Salvador Ortiz were shot to death in the restroom of a
restaurant. Defendant was charged with
the murder of both men. At trial,
defendant testified on his own behalf, admitting the shootings but claiming
they were in self-defense. The jury
convicted him of second degree murder of Orozco, and acquitted him of all
charges concerning Ortiz.
On the night of the shooting, defendant was at the
restaurant with a friend known as "La Momia." Silvia Mendez, a waitress at the restaurant,
noticed that defendant appeared drunk.
Defendant was acting "a little bit aggressive." Mendez saw defendant hitting his beer bottle
against a table where another man was sitting.
The other man at the table did not "pay him any mind" and did
not "challenge him back in any way."
Defendant then started arguing with another person in an aggressive
fashion. Mendez could not hear that
entire conversation, but at the end of the conversation she heard defendant say
something about " 'blows, hits.' " Mendez
testified that it appeared as if defendant was trying to "pick a
fight" with this second man. This
second person likewise did not pay any attention and did not challenge
defendant in any way. Mendez did not think
defendant was going to actually fight because he was acting normal, "like
any other drunk" and a lot of the men at the restaurant were drunk. However, the shooting occurred less than one
hour later.
Shortly before the shooting, Jorge
Gutierres arrived at the restaurant with his uncle, victim Ortiz. Gutierres's cousin, victim Orozco, was
already at the restaurant. According to
Gutierres, Ortiz had been drinking earlier in the day but was not drunk,
whereas Orozco was drunk. Gutierres
noticed that defendant was looking at Orozco with a "bad look on his
face" as if "he had a problem with him." Gutierres saw both Orozco and defendant go
towards the bathroom. Gutierres asked
Ortiz to go with him to the bathroom, and Ortiz stated to wait for a second and
they would go. Gutierres entered the
restroom and saw Orozco standing in front of the toilet urinating. Orozco was telling defendant to calm down,
saying, " 'There's no problem.
Everything is fine.' " Defendant, who
was standing to the left of Orozco and a bit behind him, looked upset. Defendant was holding something in his hand.
Ortiz then entered the bathroom and
stood by the door. Defendant moved a
little, and Gutierres realized that defendant was holding a gun. Ortiz also saw defendant's gun. Ortiz asked defendant, " 'Hey, what's going onâ€
| Description | Juan Contreras appeals from a judgment convicting him of second degree murder. He asserts the trial court erred in (1) admitting hearsay evidence and (2) denying a new trial motion based on juror misconduct. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the night of March 19, 2006, Ricardo Orozco and Salvador Ortiz were shot to death in the restroom of a restaurant. Defendant was charged with the murder of both men. At trial, defendant testified on his own behalf, admitting the shootings but claiming they were in self-defense. The jury convicted him of second degree murder of Orozco, and acquitted him of all charges concerning Ortiz. On the night of the shooting, defendant was at the restaurant with a friend known as "La Momia." Silvia Mendez, a waitress at the restaurant, noticed that defendant appeared drunk. Defendant was acting "a little bit aggressive." Mendez saw defendant hitting his beer bottle against a table where another man was sitting. The other man at the table did not "pay him any mind" and did not "challenge him back in any way." Defendant then started arguing with another person in an aggressive fashion. Mendez could not hear that entire conversation, but at the end of the conversation she heard defendant say something about " 'blows, hits.' " Mendez testified that it appeared as if defendant was trying to "pick a fight" with this second man. This second person likewise did not pay any attention and did not challenge defendant in any way. Mendez did not think defendant was going to actually fight because he was acting normal, "like any other drunk" and a lot of the men at the restaurant were drunk. However, the shooting occurred less than one hour later. |
| Rating |
