Filed 6/23/26 P. v. Romo CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G064357
v. (Super. Ct. No. 23NF0724)
AARON STEVAN ROMO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Morgan Ford for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General,
Eric Swenson and Monique Myers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Appellant.
* * *
Defendant Aaron Stevan Romo choked his girlfriend’s neck with
his bare hands until she was dead (manual strangulation). Romo had
previously committed multiple acts of domestic violence against his girlfriend
and six other women. The People charged Romo with first degree murder.
At trial, Romo testified that although he did not remember what
happened, he did not kill his girlfriend. Conversely, Romo’s counsel urged the
jury to return a verdict of voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) as a
lesser included offense. The jury found Romo guilty as charged. The trial
court imposed a prison sentence of 25 years to life plus five years.
On appeal, Romo claims there is insufficient evidence of
premeditation to support his first degree murder conviction, and there is
insufficient evidence of malice to overcome his voluntary manslaughter
defense. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We will first summarize Romo’s prior acts of domestic violence,
and then summarize the events surrounding Romo’s killing of his girlfriend
Mirelle Mateus (Mirelle) on March 17, 2023.
Prior Acts of Domestic Violence (Six Other Victims)
In 2007, Gabriela N. began dating Romo. They had met in high
school. Romo became “physical” with her and he was “very violent.” When
Gabriela was six months pregnant, Romo punched her. Romo would routinely
become enraged and would physically assault Gabriela by pulling her hair,
grabbing her by the arms, and grabbing her by the throat. In 2009, Gabriela
obtained a restraining order and ended the relationship. After that, Romo
2
threatened to commit suicide if she did not go out with him again.
In 2009, Laura D. began dating Romo soon after she graduated
from college. Romo’s behavior became volatile and violent. On one occasion,
Romo got upset at Laura and he threw a bottle of vodka at her. On another
occasion, Romo smashed her phone. Laura ended the relationship after about
five years. Romo continued to contact Laura after she asked him to stop.
In 2012, Robin B. began a relationship with Romo. In May 2014,
Romo was arrested for a domestic violence incident involving Robin and she
obtained a restraining order. In July 2014, and again in March 2016, Romo
was arrested for violating the restraining order.
In 2018, Sarah A. married Romo. 1 At some point, Sarah served a
restraining order upon Romo. In 2022, Romo’s friend J.W. saw Romo drag
Sarah by the hair. Sarah later made allegations in court papers that Romo
had broken her phone, punched her multiple times, pointed a gun at her,
pinned her down and choked her, and threatened to kill her.
In 2021, Elizabeth P. met Romo in Las Vegas. Elizabeth lived in
Missouri, where Romo went to visit her. In 2022, Elizabeth obtained a
restraining order based on allegations of Romo’s stalking or harassment.
In September 2022, Stephanie R. met Romo on a trip to Mexico,
and they began dating on their return to California. Stephanie lived in
Temecula; Romo lived in Anaheim. One time in a nightclub, Romo pulled her
to the ground by her hair because she was talking to a guy. Stephanie broke
up with Romo several times between October 2022, and March 2023, but he
continued to contact her. Stephanie considered getting a restraining order.
1
At the time of the trial in this case, Sarah was still married to
Romo, and they were going through divorce proceedings. Sarah invoked the
marital privilege and refused to testify.
3
Prior Acts of Domestic Violence (Mirelle)
In June or July 2022, Mirelle moved in with Romo after dating
him. In early September, they went on a trip together in Hawaii. Mirelle
called her mother on Romo’s phone and was crying. Mirelle said Romo had
hit her and broken her phone “[b]ecause he was very jealous.” Mirelle’s
mother urged her to come home, but Mirelle stayed in Hawaii for the rest of
the trip. In late September, after they got home, Romo gave Mirelle a black
eye. Mirelle told her mother that she wanted to leave Romo.
During the relationship, Mirelle would routinely move back in
with her mother for a few days, and then would return to Romo. In October
2022, at about 2:30 a.m., Romo came to the mother’s home looking for
Mirelle. When she and her mother opened the front door, Romo had a gun
pointed toward his chin, and he was threatening to kill himself if Mirelle did
not go back with him. Mirelle closed the door and Romo fired the weapon.
When they opened the door, Romo had left and Mirelle’s mother later found a
shell casing in front of the door. Mirelle’s mother did not call the police
because Romo routinely threatened to kill himself and “he was a coward.”
On December 5, 2022, Mirelle and Romo got into an argument at
their apartment while two other people were present, and the police were
contacted. During the argument, Romo had a handgun tucked into the back
of his pants and pushed Mirelle to the ground. Mirelle wanted to leave and
Romo would not let her; at one point Romo threw Mirelle off of a first floor,
four-foot high patio railing into a driveway area. The police arrived and saw
Mirelle in the driveway. Mirelle was crying and had a cut to her leg. Romo
had fled from the scene. Romo was later arrested and went to jail; Mirelle got
a restraining order. Romo was released on a $100,000 bond (he was still out
of jail on the bond in March 2023).
4
After the December 5, 2022, incident, Mirelle moved back into
her mother’s house, and she said that she no longer wanted to be with Romo.
Nonetheless, Romo and Mirelle went on a ski trip together in February 2023,
and Mirelle continued to occasionally stay with Romo until March 2023.
Events Surrounding Mirelle’s Killing
On March 16, 2023, in the late afternoon, Mirelle went to Romo’s
apartment and had her name formally taken off the lease. Romo texted his
friend J.W. and suggested they go out that night to take his mind off of
Mirelle. J.W. drove to Romo’s apartment, where they had “a couple of drinks”
before taking an Uber to a bar about three miles away. J.W. was not sure
how much they had to drink at Romo’s apartment, but it appears they split
two-thirds of a bottle of tequila.
At about 10:30 p.m., Romo and J.W. arrived at the bar. They
stayed at the bar for about three to four hours, and they each had about four
to six drinks. At about 1:30 a.m., Romo said something offensive to a young
woman who slapped him; security guards then walked Romo out of the bar.
While Romo and J.W. were standing outside of the bar waiting
for an Uber, Romo called an African American bouncer “the n-word,” and a
fight broke out. Romo was knocked to the ground, where several people took
punches at him. The fight ended after about 20 to 30 seconds. Romo was
dazed and had injuries to his face. Police arrived, but Romo said he was fine
and declined medical attention. An officer later testified that Romo was not
grossly intoxicated or unable to care for himself.
During the fight, Romo lost his phone. After talking to the police,
the Uber arrived and Romo waited inside the car while J.W. looked for
5
Romo’s phone. Romo borrowed the Uber driver’s phone and called Mirelle
seven times between 1:52 a.m. and 2:01 a.m. Romo was overheard trying to
convince Mirelle to pick him up so that he could see her. After about 10 to 15
minutes, Mirelle arrived and drove Romo back to his apartment; J.W.
separately took the Uber back to Romo’s apartment.
At Romo’s apartment complex there was a security guard at the
entrance. When Mirelle arrived she got out of her car and approached the
guard who said that “she looked distressed.” Romo was standing near
Mirelle’s car with her phone and he was screaming. Mirelle told the guard
that Romo had taken her phone and refused to return it. The security guard
could see that Romo was looking at Mirelle’s phone, and Romo said to Mirelle
that “‘you have guys hitting on you.’”
Mirelle asked the security guard to help her, and it was about
this time that J.W. returned to the apartment complex in the Uber. Mirelle
told the guard that she had a restraining order against Romo, and that he
had just punched her in the car. J.W. saw that Romo had Mirelle’s phone in
his hand, and he heard Romo say that he was upset that Mirelle “had been
texting a guy or something.” J.W. tried to get Romo to give back Mirelle’s
phone, but Romo told J.W. “to stay out of it.” J.W. eventually walked to his
car and sat there because he was too intoxicated to drive.
At about 2:30 a.m., Romo went inside his apartment, and then
stood on his patio. The security guard heard Romo tell Mirelle that she could
have her phone back if she came inside. Mirelle said, “I’m not stupid, I’m not
going to come inside.” Although the guard urged Mirelle to stay with him, she
climbed over the railing and stood on the patio. The security guard watched
as Mirelle was quickly pulled inside the apartment; the guard described that
Mirelle “got whiplash” due to being forcibly pulled inside.
6
The security guard called the Anaheim Police Department. After
calling the police, the guard heard Mirelle scream for help at “the top of her
lungs.” At 2:44 a.m., the police were dispatched to an assault in progress. The
police quickly arrived and talked to the guard who said, “‘I’m kind of worried,
like, I heard a boom and then she stopped screaming.’”
After being directed to the front door of Romo’s apartment, an
officer “heard kind of what sounded like someone having a conversation. It
was muffled.” The officer knocked on the door and announced that he was
conducting a welfare check. After about five minutes of repeatedly doing this,
the officer went to the patio and shined a flashlight inside the apartment, but
the officer did not see anything. At about 3:05 a.m., the police determined
there were not exigent circumstances to make a forced entry and they left. At
about 4:40 a.m., Romo left the apartment complex on his motorcycle.
Romo drove to Stephanie’s house in Temecula, which was 65
miles away, and arrived sometime before sunrise. Romo had blood on his
clothes and his face was bruised. Stephanie asked Romo what had happened,
but Romo did not respond and “was very nervous.” Stephanie asked if he had
hit Mirelle and he repeatedly said, “‘I want to die. I want to kill myself.’”
Romo attempted to hang himself, and at another point he cut his wrist.
J.W. called Stephanie and told her that Mirelle’s mother could
not find her daughter. Stephanie pressed Romo on what happened to Mirelle.
Romo asked Stephanie if she was recording him on her phone. After
Stephanie assured Romo he was not being recorded, he confessed to ki1ling
Mirelle. Romo told Stephanie he had strangulated Mirelle. Stephanie asked
Romo, “‘[D]id you try to do anything to revive her?’” Romo said that “he did
CPR for 20 minutes.” Police arrested Romo at Stephanie’s home and
emergency personnel transported him to Inland Valley Hospital.
7
Police Investigation
Mirelle’s body was discovered in the bathroom of Romo’s
apartment. Police arrived and noticed drops of blood on the floor leading to
the bathroom. There was a three-inch by two-inch hole in the bathroom door
with blood underneath it. Mirelle’s body was lying on the bathroom floor
facing up. Romo’s DNA was found on Mirelle’s neck and under her
fingernails. There was bruising on Mirelle’s nose, eyes, and right knee. There
was also a mark on Mirelle’s neck consistent with her being choked.
There was blood on the bathroom floor, wall, and counter. There
was a knife on the bathroom counter that matched a set of knives in the
kitchen. A clump of Mirelle’s hair was found under the vanity, and other
clumps of hair were found in the apartment. Several of Mirelle’s earrings
were found scattered about the crime scene; a criminalist opined that Mirelle
was assaulted with such force that they were knocked off. On the bathroom
floor there was a shirt that matched what Romo had worn at the bar. Two
messages were written on the bathroom mirror: “‘I didn’t want this. I love
you. I want to die please.’” And also, “‘Sorry Lieila.’” 2
Mirelle’s phone was found under a wicker basket by the front
door of the apartment. Detective Julissa Trapp later saw a video on Mirelle’s
phone in which Mirelle was engaged in sexual activity with a man other than
Romo. The video was date stamped March 13, 2023, but Trapp did not know
when the video was created, or when it had been last viewed.
Detective Trapp interviewed Romo at the Anaheim Police
Department after he had been released from the hospital, two days after he
had killed Mirelle. Romo claimed to have no memory of what occurred after
2
Romo has a daughter by the name of Leila (the girl’s name was
misspelled on the mirror).
8
arriving at the bar, until he was at Stephanie’s home the following day.
Toward the end of the interview, Trapp informed Romo that Mirelle was
found dead in his apartment. Trapp later testified that she had done
hundreds of death notifications during her career as a homicide detective.
Trapp said the two questions virtually everyone asked were: “‘What
happened?’” and, in the case of a homicide, “‘who did it?’” Romo did not ask
either of those questions.
A forensic pathologist performed an autopsy noting that within
Mirelle’s eyes there were small burst blood vessels (petechiae). Mirelle had
bruising and abrasions on her ear lobes, forehead, jaw, cheek, shoulder, and
nose, which was broken. Mirelle had abrasions to her face consistent with
someone applying pressure with their fingertips. Mirelle had multiple bruises
and abrasions to the front of her neck. Mirelle had blood in her scalp, which
was indicative of blunt force trauma. Mirelle had injuries to the back of her
left hand, which were indicative of a defensive injury. Mirelle had no
abrasions to her chest or any fractured ribs, which would typically be present
if someone had performed CPR. There was a fracture in Mirelle’s neck.
The pathologist later opined that the cause of Mirelle’s death was
manual strangulation. The pathologist testified that a person dies from
strangulation because the pressure to the neck “doesn’t allow blood to get to
the brain.” A victim first loses consciousness, but can remain alive if the
restriction on the neck is released. However, if the neck remains constricted
for a long enough period of time, death will result. When asked how long it
takes for a person to die from manual strangulation, the pathologist said:
“It’s tough to give an exact number since everyone is different. We are
typically taught that the brain can only survive for minutes in this situation.
So minutes meaning more than one, but less than an hour.”
9
Court Proceedings
The People filed an amended information charging Romo with
murder (March 17, 2023), domestic violence causing corporal injury
(December 5, 2022), false imprisonment (Dec. 5), and obstructing a peace
officer (Dec. 5). The information alleged the homicide was committed while
Romo was out on bail.
On April 24, 2024, a 17-day jury trial began. After the People
presented their case-in-chief, the trial court dismissed the charge of
obstructing a peace officer. Romo then testified on his own behalf, and called
two expert witnesses.
On direct examination, Romo testified that he remembered going
out with J.W. and getting into a fight at the bar, but he did not remember
anything after that until he woke up at the hospital. Romo said he did not
remember: going back to his apartment, anything that happened at his
apartment, driving to Temecula on his motorcycle, seeing Stephanie that
night, or being transported to the hospital. Romo testified that he would not
have misspelled his daughter’s name on the mirror. As far as the events of
December 5, 2022, Romo testified that he did not prevent Mirelle from
leaving, he had no physical contact with her, and he did not throw her over
the four-foot high railing. Romo said that he has never possessed a gun.
On cross-examination, Romo said that Gabriela lied about him
abusing her. Romo testified that Stephanie’s testimony about him previously
pulling her to the ground by her hair “just didn’t happen like that.” Romo
admitted he does have some trouble controlling his anger. Romo testified that
he did not pull Mirelle’s hair on their trip to Hawaii, but he did admit
breaking her phone. Romo said that while in Hawaii he never hit Mirelle, put
his hands around her throat, or threatened to kill himself. However, Romo
10
admitted he did argue with her because she talked to another man and that
made him jealous. When the prosecutor showed Romo a picture taken in
September of 2022, which showed Mirelle with a black eye, Romo said that he
“couldn’t tell you if I gave her that black eye.”
Romo testified that he never struck his wife Sarah, but he did
admit to pulling her hair. Romo admitted that he broke down a hotel room
door during a trip to Las Vegas with Sarah, but he said he never threatened
to kill her. Romo testified that Sarah’s statements in court papers that he
waved a gun at her, choked her, and punched her multiple times were all lies.
Romo testified that he did not kill Mirelle. Romo said that he
never told Stephanie that he killed Mirelle, strangled her, or performed CPR.
Romo said Stephanie was lying, even though he maintained a cordial
relationship with her and kept in contact with her from jail following his
arrest. Romo testified that his first memory after the fight was when he woke
up at the hospital. Romo said that although he was handcuffed to the
hospital bed, and the police were present for a couple of days, he never asked
them “‘what’s happening, why am I here?’”
Dr. Jeff Vitoroff is a neurologist who testified on direct
examination that he interviewed Romo, conducted a physical examination,
reviewed the police reports and hospital records, and viewed the video of the
fight outside of the bar. Vitoroff concluded Romo had suffered a concussive
brain injury. As to memory loss, Vitoroff testified that based on what Romo
had told him, he had a history of alcohol blackouts. Vitoroff also opined that
Romo also had a history of traumatic brain injuries. Vitoroff opined that
persons who have suffered traumatic brain injuries are vulnerable to
aggression and loss of impulse control.
On cross-examination, Vitoroff agreed that people without brain
11
injuries can lack impulse control. Vitoroff acknowledged that if Romo gave
him false information then his opinion may be flawed. Vitoroff agreed there
was no information beyond Romo’s statements showing a history of brain
injuries. Vitoroff did not view the video of Romo speaking to an officer right
after the fight. Vitoroff acknowledged that Romo had a brain scan at the
hospital and the findings were normal. Vitoroff agreed he could not
determine if Romo was malingering.
Darrell Clardy is a forensic toxicologist who testified on direct
examination that he is an expert who routinely testifies as to the effects of
alcohol on driving. Clardy had reviewed the reports and had spoken to Romo.
Clardy opined that based on Romo’s self-reported alcohol consumption, Romo
had a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) “in the range of a .25, .28 up to a .40
at the time he hit his peak, which would be around 2:30.” Clardy testified
that Romo’s claimed memory loss was consistent with alcohol consumption.
On cross-examination, Clardy agreed that if the information he
received from Romo was a lie, then his assumptions about his BAC may be
completely inaccurate. Clardy acknowledged that in most cases in which he
testifies he has the results of the defendant’s BAC tests, but in this case there
were none. Clardy agreed that most people are unconscious at a BAC of .25,
and at above .30 there would be a severe risk of death. Clardy did not look at
any videos prior to his testimony.
As a rebuttal witness, the People called Dr. Jeremy Lee Hogan, a
neurologist who testified that a concussion and a traumatic brain injury are
synonymous terms. Hogan had reviewed videos, Romo’s medical records from
the Inland Valley hospital, and his prior medical records. Hogan noted that
Romo had suffered a concussion due to a car accident about six to eight years
ago. Hogan noted that in the Inland Valley hospital records there was no
12
documentation of Romo having suffered a concussion.
Hogan agreed that Romo may have suffered a concussion during
the fight outside of the bar; however, Hogan noted that the video with the
officer right after the fight revealed that Romo was awake and alert and able
to answer questions. Hogan testified that persons with concussions may have
a memory loss, but “generally they have an overall sense of things that have
happened. It would be unusual for a person with a concussion to say that
they have absolutely no recollection of events for many hours.” Hogan said
that during an alcohol blackout people are unable to lay down new memories,
but during this period they are ordinarily able to make decisions, and are
generally aware of themselves and their surroundings.
The trial court instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter as
a lesser included offense of murder. The jury found Romo guilty of first
degree murder, domestic violence causing corporal injury, and false
imprisonment. In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found true the
enhancement that he was out on bail when he committed the murder. The
court imposed a prison sentence of five years plus 25 years to life.
II.
DISCUSSION
Romo claims there is insufficient evidence to support his first
degree premeditated murder conviction, and there is insufficient evidence of
malice to overcome his voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) defense.
In this discussion we shall: A) state the deferential standard of
review; B) consider Romo’s claim regarding premeditation and deliberation;
and C) consider Romo’s claim regarding voluntary manslaughter.
13
A. Standard of Review
Under the sufficiency of the evidence standard of review we
consider “the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to
determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is
reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact
could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v.
Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27, italics added.)
“In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court
resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.]
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.)
“The reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of
every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v.
Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208.) “Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind
is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as
sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.” (Ibid.)
The sufficiency of the evidence standard of review to support a
criminal conviction is “highly deferential.” (People v. Lochtefeld (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 533, 538.) “The conviction shall stand ‘unless it appears “that
upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to
support [it].”’” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 508.)
B. First Degree Murder (Premeditation and Deliberation)
Romo claims there is insufficient evidence that he killed Mirelle
with premeditation and deliberation. We disagree.
“Both first and second degree murder require proof of an
unlawful killing committed with malice aforethought, but only the former
14
requires evidence of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation.” (People v.
Wilson (2021) 11 Cal.5th 259, 296–297; accord, Pen. Code, § 189.)
“‘Willful’ is synonymous with ‘express malice’: in other words, a
specific intent to kill. [Citation.] Premeditation occurs when the killing is
‘“considered beforehand,”’ and deliberation occurs when the decision to kill is
‘“formed or arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and
weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action.”’”
(People v. Mejia (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 586, 604.)
As for premeditation and deliberation, “the requisite reflection
need not span a specific or extended period of time. Thoughts may follow each
other with great rapidity, and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at
quickly.” (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 213.) “‘“The true test is not
the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection.”’” (People v.
Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080; see People v. Lenart (2004) 32 Cal.4th
1107, 1127 [“Premeditation and deliberation do not require much time”].)
The Supreme Court has identified three categories of evidence
related to premeditation and deliberation: (1) planning activity, (2) motive,
and (3) the manner of killing. (People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26–27
(Anderson).) “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.” (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117,
1125.) However, “Anderson did not purport to establish an exhaustive list
that would exclude all other types and combinations of evidence that could
support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. (Ibid.) “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.” (Ibid.)
15
As far as planning activity, it is a reasonable inference that Romo
attempted to lure Mirelle into his apartment— a more secluded area where
the security guard was not present—by promising to return her cell phone if
she entered the apartment. (See People v. Lucero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1006,
1018–1019 [there was “substantial evidence of premeditation related to
planning activity” where “defendant lured or compelled the victims to enter”
his home]; People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1019 [“Defendant’s
choice . . . of committing his crimes in isolated or secluded settings further
suggests a premeditated plan designed to avoid detection”].)
Further, the jury could have reasonably determined that Romo
formed the plan to kill Mirelle as he was choking her. (See People v. Disa
(2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 654, 666 [“evidence of planning may be inferred from
the fact defendant ‘deliberately continued to exert pressure on [the victim’s]
neck even after she went limp’”]; see also People v. Lenart, supra, 32 Cal.4th
at p. 1127 [“Premeditation and deliberation do not require much time”].)
As far as motive, the record is replete with propensity evidence
that Romo routinely committed domestic violence against his romantic
partners. (Evid. Code, § 1109; People v. Brown (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1222,
1232 [“Section 1109, in effect, ‘permits the admission of defendant’s other
acts of domestic violence for the purpose of showing a propensity to commit
such crimes’”].)
Here, there was evidence Mirelle had taken her name off the
lease, and was presumably prepared to leave him, just hours prior to Romo
strangling her. Based on this, the jury could reasonably infer that Romo had
a motive to kill Mirelle out of anger. (People v. Disa, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at
p. 666 [evidence of motive where defendant killed his girlfriend because he
was angry “over the apparent ending of their relationship”].)
16
As far as the manner of killing, the forensic pathologist who
performed the autopsy testified that Mirelle’s neck was choked to the point
where it hemorrhaged, and “she had a fracture of the superior horn of her
laryngeal cartilage.” The pathologist testified that these injuries indicate that
Romo must have exerted a large amount of force, and Mirelle’s death could
not have happened by Romo just briefly grabbing her neck. Moreover, the
pathologist testified Romo must have applied sustained pressure on Mirelle’s
neck for over a minute (at a minimum) in order to kill her.
California law makes clear that evidence of manual strangulation
is sufficient to establish a murderer’s premeditation and deliberation. (People
v. Hovarter, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1020 [“This prolonged manner of taking a
person’s life, which requires an offender to apply constant force to the neck of
the victim, affords ample time for the offender to consider the nature of his
deadly act”]; People v. Disa, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 666 [“As to manner of
killing, defendant used a carotid restraint hold, which can render a victim
unconscious within a few seconds and dead in a minute. This manner of
killing may be viewed as demonstrating ‘a calculated design to ensure death
rather than an unconsidered explosion of violence’”]; People v. Shamblin
(2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1, 10–11 [“the California Supreme Court has held
that strangulation as a manner of killing is sufficient evidence of
premeditation and deliberation because its prolonged nature provides ample
time for the killer to consider his actions”].)
Thus, we find sufficient evidence of Romo’s premeditation and
deliberation to support the jury’s verdict of first degree murder.
Romo argues, based on the testimony of his neurologist and
toxicologist, that “[h]e was concussed, brain damaged (and heavily
intoxicated) at the time of the killing.” But the People called their own
17
neurologist who challenged the opinions of the defense neurologist regarding
Romo’s purported concussion and its purported effects. The People’s
neurologist opined that even if Romo had sustained a concussion during the
fight at the bar, that would not have explained his professed hours of memory
loss. And the People established during the cross-examination of the defense
toxicologist that he formed his opinion regarding Romo’s level of intoxication
(BAC) based solely on the self-serving information he gleaned from Romo.
In sum, in a sufficiency of the evidence review we are not
permitted to weigh the conflicting evidence or to second-guess the judgment
of the jury. (See People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1181 [“Resolution of
conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the
trier of fact”].) Romo’s various arguments do not change our analysis that
there is sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation.
C. Voluntary Manslaughter
Romo claims that the People “failed to prove malice aforethought
since this was a crime committed in the heat of passion and was therefore
voluntary manslaughter.” We disagree.
“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with
malice aforethought.” (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The required “malice may
be express or implied. [¶] (1) Malice is express when there is manifested a
deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature. [¶]
(2) Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the
circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant
heart.” (Pen. Code, § 188, subd. (a), italics added.)
One aspect of voluntary manslaughter involves a killing “upon a
sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a).) “A defendant
18
commits voluntary manslaughter when a homicide that is committed either
with intent to kill or with conscious disregard for life—and therefore would
normally constitute murder—is nevertheless reduced or mitigated to
manslaughter.” (People v. Bryant (2013) 56 Cal.4th 959, 968.)
In a voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) defense: “The focus
is on the provocation—the surrounding circumstances—and whether it was
sufficient to cause a reasonable person to act rashly.” (People v. Najera (2006)
138 Cal.App.4th 212, 223.) A “trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on
voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder [where] there
is evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that” adequate
provocation was present. (People v. Thomas (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 630, 643.)
When a defendant puts provocation at issue by making a sufficient showing
to raise a reasonable doubt, the prosecution must prove malice beyond a
reasonable doubt by proving sufficient provocation was lacking. (Ibid.)
A homicide may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter “if the
killer’s reason was actually obscured as the result of a strong passion aroused
by a ‘provocation’ sufficient to cause an ‘“ordinary [person] of average
disposition . . . to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection, and
from this passion rather than from judgment.”’” (People v. Breverman (1998)
19 Cal.4th 142, 163, italics added, disapproved on other grounds in People v.
Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 260, fn. 7.) That is, the defense has both
subjective and objective elements: the defendant actually killed in the heat of
passion (the subjective element); and the circumstances giving rise to the
heat of passion—the provocation—would arouse passion in the mind of an
ordinarily reasonable person in similar circumstances (the objective element).
(People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1253.)
Here, the same facts that support a finding that Romo acted with
19
premeditation and deliberation support a finding that Romo acted with
express malice (that he intended to kill Mirelle by choking her to death). (See
People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741 [“it is well settled that intent to
kill or express malice, . . . may in many cases be inferred from the defendant’s
acts and the circumstances of the crime”].) Further, the same facts also
support a finding that Romo acted with implied malice. That is, the natural
consequences of choking a person for more than a minute is that the victim is
likely to perish. (See People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1208 [“Evidence
of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial”].)
In short, we find sufficient evidence to support the jury’s implicit
findings that Romo acted with express or implied malice. Thus, we again
affirm Romo’s first degree murder conviction.
Romo argues that he was sufficiently provoked and is entitled to
a verdict of voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) because on the night
that he killed Mirelle, he “saw the victim’s phone and saw she had been
communicating with another man.” We disagree.
As far as the subjective element of voluntary manslaughter,
Romo testified on direct examination that he had no memory of what
occurred. Therefore, Romo’s testimony provided no evidence whatsoever that
he was subjectively provoked into killing Mirelle.
Further, on cross-examination, Romo was asked if Mirelle had
the right to communicate with other men on the night she was killed and he
said, “She has the right to do whatever she wants.” And when pressed by the
prosecutor on whether Mirelle’s talking to another man would have enraged
him, Romo said that “it might bother me.” (Italics added.)
In sum, Romo’s testimony that he might be bothered by seeing
Mirelle’s text messages from another man does not provide adequate
20
evidence of subjective provocation, or heat of passion. (See People v. Borchers
(1958) 50 Cal.2d 321, 329 [“According to dictionary definition, ‘passion’ may
be any ‘Violent, intense, high-wrought, or enthusiastic emotion’”].)
Further, even if there was sufficient evidence to establish the
subjective component of involuntary manslaughter (heat of passion), there
was insufficient evidence of objective provocation. That is, no reasonable juror
could have determined that Romo’s viewing of text messages from another
man on Mirelle’s phone would have established the kind of provocative
conduct that “would cause an ordinary person of average disposition to act
rashly or without due deliberation and reflection.”3 (See People v. Manriquez
(2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 583–584, italics added.)
As the trial court instructed the jury: “It is not enough that the
defendant simply was provoked. The defendant is not allowed to set up his
own standard of conduct. You must decide whether the defendant was
provoked and whether the provocation was sufficient. In deciding whether the
provocation was sufficient, consider whether a person of average disposition,
in the same situation and knowing the same facts, would have reacted from
passion rather than from judgment.” (CALCRIM No. 570, italics added.)
In other words, even if we were to presume that the jury found
3
Romo does not appear to be arguing on appeal that on the night
of March 17, 2023, he saw on Mirelle’s phone the video of her engaging in a
sexual act with another man. Indeed, the security guard testified at trial that
Romo was looking at Mirelle’s phone, and Romo then said to Mirelle that
“‘you have guys hitting on you.’” J.W. also testified that Romo had Mirelle’s
phone in his hand, and he heard Romo say that he was upset that Mirelle
“had been texting a guy or something.”
In any event, even if Romo had made this argument, we would
still find sufficient evidence that objective provocation was lacking. (Compare
People v. Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 585–586; People v. Najera,
supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at pp. 215–216.)
21
Romo was subjectively provoked, then we find sufficient evidence to support
the jury’s further implied finding that his claimed provocation was not
objectively reasonable. (See People v. Fenenbock (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1688,
1704–1705 [“Generally, it is a question of fact for the jury whether the
circumstances were sufficient to arouse the passions of the ordinarily
reasonable person”]; compare People v. Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp.
585–586 [insufficient evidence of provocation where victim called defendant a
“mother f*cker” and taunted him]; People v. Najera, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 215–216 [insufficient evidence of provocation where victim called
defendant a “‘f*ggot’” and pushed him to the ground].)
To reiterate and conclude, we find sufficient evidence to support
Romo’s first degree murder conviction.
III.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
SANCHEZ, J.
GOODING, J.
22