Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Santa Maria

P. v. Santa Maria

Filed 9/14/06 P. v. Santa Maria CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

LUDVIN SANTA MARIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

B183576

(Los Angeles

Super. Ct. No. BA262317)

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ruffo Espinoso, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard I. Fine for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Ellen Birnbaum Kehr, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Following a jury trial, appellant Ludvin Santa Maria was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Jennifer Deborah Pineda. At the trial, he admitted that he killed her, but maintained that the crime was manslaughter, because he had an outburst of rage due to provocative words she said during an argument. He has no prior criminal record. He was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life. On appeal, he contends: (1) There was insufficient evidence that he had the requisite mental state for first degree murder. (2) The trial court erred in its rulings about an untranscribed portion of his statement to the police. (3) The trial court should not have permitted the police detective who interrogated appellant to give a paraphrased summary of what he said.

The facts of this case are tragic. We conclude, however, that appellant had a fair trial, free of prejudicial error. We therefore affirm his conviction.

FACTS AND DISCUSSION[1]

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant argues that (a) his motion for a judgment of acquittal should have been granted, as the People's case established no more than voluntary manslaughter, (b) his motion for new trial should have been granted, because there was insufficient evidence of premeditation, and (c) the trial court should have reduced his sentence to a lesser degree of murder.

We described the applicable test in People v. Sales (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 741, 746: â€

Description	Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife. At the trial, he admitted that he killed her, but maintained that the crime was manslaughter, because he had an outburst of rage due to provocative words appellant said during an argument. Appellant has no prior criminal record. Appellant was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life. On appeal, he contends: (1) There was insufficient evidence that he had the requisite mental state for first degree murder. (2) The trial court erred in its rulings about an untranscribed portion of his statement to the police. (3) The trial court should not have permitted the police detective who interrogated appellant to give a paraphrased summary of what he said. The facts of this case are tragic. Court conclude, however, that appellant had a fair trial, free of prejudicial error. Court therefore affirm his conviction.
Rating	100/5 1 2 3 4 5 5/5 based on 1 vote.