P. v. Villalobos
Filed 7/17/12 P. v. Villalobos 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
ROBERT VILLALOBOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
D058579
(Super. Ct.
No. SWF026253)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury
convicted Robert Villalobos of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder in
the first degree of George Hernandez in violation of Penal Code section 187,
subdivision (a) (hereafter section 187(a)) (undesignated statutory references
will be to the Penal Code). The jury
found true an enhancement allegation
that Villalobos personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife),
causing death in the commission of the crime within the meaning of sections
12022, subdivision (b)(1) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23). The court sentenced Villalobos to an
indeterminate prison term of 25 years to life for the murder, plus a
consecutive one-year term for the weapon use enhancement, for a total
indeterminate term of 26 years to life.
Villalobos
appeals, contending (1) his murder conviction must be reversed because the
court prejudicially erred by excluding the testimony of a witness he claims was
an expert in knives and human stab wounds, and thereby violated his due process
right to present a defense that someone else stabbed the victim; and (2) if
this court does not reverse his murder conviction based on the exclusion of
that testimony, this court should modify the judgment "to reflect a
conviction of second degree murder" because there is insufficient evidence
to support the jury's findings of premeditation and deliberation. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
A.
On August 28, 2008, the date of the
murder in this case, George Hernandez (the victim), Eloy Luna, and Max Reyes
were friends. Corina Vasquez was Reyes's
girlfriend.
Manuel and
Angelica Sauceda lived on North Torn Ranch Road
in Lake Elsinore
with their two sons, Erik and Cristian Sauceda, their two daughters, and their
niece, Maria Guadalupe Sanchez Saucedo.
Erik and
Luna had been high school friends. Erik
was acquainted with Hernandez.
Villalobos and Erik were friends.
The Triple
Six Kings, also known as TSK, was a "tagging crew" that spray-painted
graffiti in certain areas of Lake Elsinore. Out Causing Panic, also known as OCP or TRS
(for Torn Ranch Street),
was a rival tagging crew in that city.
Reyes was a
member of TSK and was actively involved in its tagging activities. Erik and Cristian associated with members of
the rival OCP tagging crew. Luna was
aware of Erik's association with OCP.
About a
week before August 28, 2008,
OCP members drove by the home of a TSK member who was a friend of Luna and
fired a gunshot in the air in front of the home. Erik was in the car with the OCP crew.
In another
incident that occurred prior to the murder, OCP tagged the home of Jerry
Martinez in Lake Elsinore,
a mutual friend of Hernandez, Luna, and Reyes, while Martinez
was in custody in juvenile hall. The
home was tagged in four places with graffiti that said "OCP" and
"TRS." Martinez's
home was located a couple of blocks from the Saucedas' home.
On August 28, 2008, Villalobos visited
Erik and Cristian at their home.
Villalobos was wearing an Oakland Raiders jersey with a white muscle
shirt underneath it. During the
investigation that followed the murder, Erik told detectives in a recorded
statement that Villalobos had a long knife that had a fixed stainless steel
blade with small curves on it.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
Hernandez,
Luna, and Reyes discussed the OCP's tagging of Martinez's
home, which upset them. As a result of
their being upset, Hernandez, Luna, and Reyes decided to cover up the graffiti
and then confront Erik about both the tagging of Martinez's
home and the OCP drive-by shooting.
Late that
night, Vasquez drove Hernandez, Luna, and Reyes to North
Torn Ranch Road, parked near the Saucedas' home
and stayed in the car after Hernandez, Luna, and Reyes got out and approached
the house, where one of them politely asked Maria to get Erik because they
wanted to speak with him. Assuming the
three men were Erik's friends, Maria replied that she would get him, and she
then walked into the house through the front door.
Erik,
followed a few minutes later by Villalobos and Cristian, came to the front
doorway pointing a BB gun and angrily asked Hernandez, Luna, and Reyes, who
were wearing hoodies, "Why are you here"
Hernandez, Reyes,
and Luna accused Erik of being involved in the tagging of Martinez's
home. Erik threw down the BB gun and
confronted Hernandez. Erik and Hernandez
began pushing each other and then moved to the middle of the street, where they
began fist fighting.
Erik
punched Hernandez in the face, knocking him to the ground. Erik then kicked him twice in the head and
punched him in the stomach and ribs.
Neither Erik nor Hernandez used a weapon during the fight.
Luna
punched Erik, knocking him down in the middle of the street. Hernandez struggled to stand up and then
walked across the street away from the fight and in front of Vasquez's car to a
neighbor's house.
Villalobos,
who had returned to the Saucedas' house, brought the Saucedas' two pitbulls to the
front door. Villalobos was holding a
knife with a four-inch blade. Villalobos
removed the sheath or case of the knife as he exited the house.
After
releasing the pitbulls and removing the knife from its sheath, Villalobos ran
across the street past Erik and rushed Hernandez at full stride. An altercation then took place between
Villalobos and Hernandez near Vasquez's car and the lawn of a house across the
street from the Saucedas' home.
Villalobos and Hernandez were swinging at each other and wrestling on
the ground where blood was later found.
Soon
thereafter, Luna helped Hernandez to stand up, but Hernandez "wasn't all
there." Luna helped Hernandez walk
across the driveway or down the sidewalk to Vasquez's car, and Hernandez got
into the back seat of the passenger side of the car. Villalobos leaned into the driver's side
window and punched Vasquez in the face.
Vasquez testified she glanced at Villalobos's right hand, which was on
the car door, and saw he was holding a knife which she described as a
pocketknife, but she stated she did not get a long look at the knife.
Luna got in
the back seat with Hernandez, and Reyes sat in the front passenger seat. Vasquez was hysterical and could not
drive. Reyes leaned over, put the car in
gear, grabbed the steering wheel, stepped on the gas pedal, and drove
away. Villalobos fled and was not seen
again.
Hernandez
was taken to the hospital. Hernandez was
not conscious when they arrived, and he died of a stab wound sometime after 5:00 a.m.
Dr. Mark
Fajardo, a forensic pathologist employed by the Riverside County Sheriff-
Coroner, performed Hernandez's autopsy and testified that Hernandez suffered
two stab wounds in his mid- to lower back, and the fatal wound penetrated about
four inches into Hernandez's body, severing the renal artery where it connected
to the aorta and resulting in extensive blood loss which was the main cause of
death.
At around 11:40 p.m. on the night of the murder, Erik
and Cristian discussed the incident with Deputy Dwayne Parrish of the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department and showed him where the fight occurred. A pool of blood was found in the sidewalk
gutter across the street from the Saucedas' home. Homicide detectives later discovered that
blood initially pooled in the front lawn of the house across the street from
the Saucedas' home and saturated the grass before running down the driveway and
sidewalk into the gutter. No weapons
were found at the murder scene.
B. The
Defense Case
Villalobos
presented witnesses who indicated he had reasons to be living in Las
Vegas at the time of his arrest because his uncle,
Delfino Rubi, lived there and Villalobos went there to find work.
A captain
at the Los Angeles Fire Department who was also a licensed paramedic and had
responded to several hundred stabbing scenes testified that significant pooling
of blood is not always found at stabbing scenes.
A former
gang member testifying as a defense gang expert testified that if someone had
gang associations 15 or 20 years ago, his current possession of gang
memorabilia does not necessarily mean he still has ties to the gang.
DISCUSSION
I
TESTIMONY
Villalobos
contends his murder conviction must be reversed because the court prejudicially
erred by excluding the testimony of Brian Martin, a witness he claims was an
expert in knives and human stab wounds, and thereby violated his due process
right to present a defense that someone else stabbed the victim. We conclude the court did not err.
A.
Evidence
Code section 720, subdivision (a), provides:
"A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him
as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such
special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown
before the witness may testify as an expert."
A trial
court has broad discretion in deciding whether an expert witness is qualified
to testify on a particular issue. The
California Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he trial court is given
considerable latitude in determining the qualifications of an expert and its
ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion is
shown. [Citations.] [¶] However, whether a person qualifies as an
expert in a particular case depends upon the facts of that case and the
witness' qualifications." (
39.)
B.
Villalobos
asserts Martin "would have testified that a wavy knife like the one that
Reyes said [Villalobos] was wielding and which he made a sketch of that was
admitted into evidence was not consistent with the injuries sustained by [Hernandez] . . . ." Villalobos complains that Martin would
"have educated the jury regarding various types of knives and the type of
entry wounds they create," and contends the exclusion of Martin's
testimony "eliminated" his defense that the knife he allegedly used
could not have caused Hernandez's stab
We conclude
Villalobos has not carried his burden on appeal of establishing the court
abused its discretion or violated his right to present a defense by deciding
Martin was not qualified to testify as an expert in this matter. Following the Evidence Code section 402
hearing at which Martin testified about his qualifications and asserted the
kind of entry wound a particular knife may cause is "fairly easy to
determine" by thrusting the knife into a block of clay, the court excluded
Martin's testimony, stating:
"[T]his is not a close call. Your request to call the witness is
denied. I do not have to hear any cross
from [the prosecutor], and let me tell you why, [defense counsel].
"Again, for the record, this is not a close
call. Although there is no question in
the Court's mind that Mr. Martin is, indeed, an expert
in . . . all matters of cutlery, no foundation has been laid in terms of his medical training,
background. In fact, in some ways, I
think there would be some misinformation here for the jury, because at this
time we don't have the knife that was used to stab the victim. If we had the knife, and then we were
comparing and the foundation has been laid of that, that clay was similar to
skin, and then we had photographs that were lined up to show clay to skin, and
then had a doctor testify, that would be one thing, but we don't have the
knife.
"The pathologist already said he doesn't know the
kind of knife that was used. There is no
indication on those photographs that were shown in the exhibits whether or not
there was a spine on those knives, and whether that would have made a
difference." (Italics added.)
After
defense counsel noted that Martin discussed the "spines" on knives
depicted in defense photographs, the court stated:
"Oh, no, [defense counsel]. I am just trying to give you some of the
reasons and also for any appellate purposes.
"You are right, all the knives that were shown in
the court exhibits had spines, but we don't have this knife, so I don't know if
the knife that was used had a spine. I
also don't know even if it were shown that the
knife . . . that was used to kill [Hernandez] had a spine,
whether or not that would show up in a human body.
"Clay is one thing.
Skin is another.
background. I have no testimony that
the clay is similar to skin. I don't
have the knife being used on the clay."
(Italics added.)
The court
reiterated that Martin was a cutlery expert, but found he could not provide
information about the knife that Villalobos used and "how it would create
a specific kind of injury in a human body."
Having
reviewed both Martin's testimony and the court's ruling, we conclude the court
did not abuse its broad discretion by excluding Martin's testimony because the
record shows he was not qualified to testify on the subject to which his
testimony related.
title="">[3] (See Evid. Code, § 720;
As the court correctly found, the defense failed to lay a foundation
that Martin had special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
sufficient to qualify him as an expert on human stab wounds and, specifically,
on how particular knives "would create a specific kind of injury in a
human body." Absent such a
foundation, the court's determination that Martin was unqualified was, as the
court stated, "not a close call."
II
Villalobos
also contends that if this court does not reverse his murder conviction based
on the exclusion of Martin's purported expert testimony, this court should
modify the judgment "to reflect a conviction of second degree murder"
because there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of
premeditation and deliberation. We
conclude substantial evidence supports the jury's findings.
A.
An unlawful
killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder and is of the first
degree if it is willful, premeditated, and deliberate. (§§ 187(a), 189.) "To prove the killing was 'deliberate
and premeditated,' it shall not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely
and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of his or her act." (§ 189.)
In
the California Supreme Court "distilled certain guidelines to aid
reviewing courts in analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain
findings of premeditation and deliberation.
The Anderson analysis was
intended only as a framework to aid in appellate review; it did not propose to
define the elements of first degree murder or alter the substantive law of
murder in any way. [Citation.] . . . The
Anderson guidelines are descriptive,
not normative. [Citation.] The goal of Anderson was to aid reviewing courts in assessing whether the
evidence is supportive of an inference that the killing was the result of
preexisting reflection and weighing of considerations rather than mere
unconsidered or rash impulse." (
1125.)
"[T]he
Anderson court identified three
categories of evidence pertinent to the determination of premeditation and
deliberation: (1) planning activity, (2)
motive, and (3) manner of killing. . . .
The Anderson factors, while
helpful for purposes of review, are not a sine qua non to finding first degree
premeditated murder, nor are they exclusive." (People
v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p.
1125.)
1. Standard of review
When
assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the
substantial evidence standard of review, under which we view the evidence
"in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it
discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible,
and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People
v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578; Jackson
v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.)
"The same standard of review applies to cases in which the
prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence." (People
v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.)
The
uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction
or true finding on an enhancement allegation, "unless the testimony is
physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People
v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296.)
We do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or
reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.
(People v. Ochoa (1993) 6
Cal.4th 1199, 1206; People v. Jones
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.)
"Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is
the exclusive province of the trier of fact." (People
v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)
B.
Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude substantial
evidence supports the jury's finding that Villalobos murdered Hernandez with
premeditation and deliberation. With
respect to the first Anderson factor,
substantial evidence supports a reasonable inference that Villalobos
so doing, killed him with premeditation and deliberation. Villalobos joined Cristian and Erik, who had
a BB gun, in front of the Saucedas' house during the initial confrontation with
Hernandez and his friends. Villalobos
went back into the house and, holding a knife, brought the Saucedas' two
pitbulls to the front door. During a
recorded interview, Erik told detectives, "I ain't gonna take this fucking
rap. This fool [Villalobos] had a knife
there." The record shows no one
else was seen in possession of a knife at the scene of the murder that
day. A defendant's act of arming himself
with a knife is evidence of planning activity for purposes of determining
whether substantial evidence supports the jury's finding of premeditation and
deliberation. (People v. Perez, supra, 2
Cal.4th at p. 1126.)
The trial
record shows that after Villalobos armed himself with the knife, he released
the pitbulls, removed the knife sheath or case as he exited the house, ran
across the street past Erik, and rushed Hernandez at full stride. He and Hernandez swung at each other and
wrestled on the ground where blood was later found.
The process
of premeditation does not require any extended period of time, and the true
test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the
reflection. (People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1286.) Here, the foregoing substantial evidence supports
a reasonable inference that Villalobos's killing of Hernandez was the result of
planning and "preexisting reflection and weighing of considerations rather
than mere unconsidered or rash impulse."
(People v. Perez,
knife and two pitbulls only after the initial confrontation took place in front
of the Saucedas' house. He had
sufficient time to reflect upon what he was doing. Before he attacked and fatally stabbed
Hernandez, Villalobos had to perform the additional intentional act of removing
the sheathing from the murder weapon. In
sum, the prosecution presented ample evidence of planning activity.
Regarding
the second Anderson factor,
substantial evidence supports a reasonable inference that Villalobos had a
was an active member of the TSK graffiti tagging crew. Villalobos and Erik were friends. Erik and his brother, Cristian, associated
with members of the rival OCP tagging crew.
OCP graffiti was found on a tequila bottle at the Villalobos family's
three-bedroom residence─where Villalobos had lived and where he kept
clothing and other personal items─during the execution of a
was, and he would be surprised if there was graffiti in the house with the
initials "OCP." Hernandez was
with Reyes and Luna when they confronted Erik in front of Erik's home─in
the presence of Villalobos and Cristian─the night of the murder and
accused Erik of being involved in the tagging of Martinez's home. As shown by the opinion testimony of gang
expert Nelson Gomez in response to a hypothetical question by the prosecutor,
Villalobos's actions demonstrated a desire to align himself with the OCP and
gain its respect. In sum, substantial
evidence supports reasonable inferences that Villalobos had a motive to kill
Hernandez and he did kill Hernandez with premeditation and deliberation.
Regarding
the third Anderson factor,
Villalobos's manner of killing
Hernandez also supported a reasonable inference that Villalobos killed him with
premeditation and deliberation. The
focused infliction of injuries to a vital part of the victim's body is method
evidence for purposes of determining whether substantial evidence supports the
jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation. (See People
v. Harris, supra, 43 Cal.4th at
p. 1287 [stabbing in the area of the victim's heart with sufficient force to
pierce the heart]; People v. Thomas
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 518 [shooting victims in the head].) Here, as shown by the pathologist's testimony
that the fatal stabbing wound penetrated four inches into Hernandez's body and
severed the renal artery, Villalobos inflicted Hernandez's wounds in "a
method sufficiently '"particular and exacting"' to warrant an
inference that [he] was acting according to a preconceived design." (People
v. Thomas, at p. 518, quoting People
v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1050, disapproved on another ground in
as stated in People v. Whitt (1990)
51 Cal.3d 620, 657, fn. 29.) The jury
could reasonably infer from Villalobos's manner of killing Hernandez that he
premeditated and deliberated the murder.
Considering
all three Anderson factors and the
entire record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the jury's finding
that Villalobos premeditated and deliberated his murder of Hernandez. To the extent Villalobos points to contrary
evidence and contrary inferences to support his claim there is insufficient
evidence to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation, he misapplies
the substantial evidence standard of review discussed, ante. We conclude Villalobos has not carried his burden to
affirmatively show on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support the
judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES,
J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
In the interest of clarity and
brevity, members of the Sauceda household will be referred to by their first
names.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
At trial, Erik changed his story
and claimed the knife was a clip-on pocket knife and he lied to the detectives
when he described it as a curvy, fixed-blade knife.
