19 Cal.4th 1231A, People v. Roybal
| Decision Date | 12 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S029453,S029453 |
| Citation | 19 Cal.4th 481,79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | A, 19 Cal.4th 481, 966 P.2d 521, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8380, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,599 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rudolph Jose ROYBAL, Defendant and Appellant |
Barry L. Morris, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Hayward, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Garrett Beaumont and Janelle Marie Boustany, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is an automatic appeal (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law (id., § 190 et seq.).
On June 1, 1992, the District Attorney of San Diego County filed an amended information against Rudolph Jose Roybal in the superior court of that county.
Count I charged that, on or about June 10, 1989, defendant murdered Yvonne Weden. (Pen.Code, § 187, subd. (a).) It was alleged for death eligibility that he did so under the special circumstances of (1) felony-murder robbery, and (2) felony-murder burglary. (Id., former § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i), (vii), as added by initiative, Nov. 6, 1978.)
Count II charged that, on or about June 10, 1989, defendant committed robbery against Weden in an inhabited dwelling. (Pen.Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a).)
Count III charged that, on or about June 10, 1989, defendant committed burglary of an inhabited dwelling. (Pen.Code, §§ 459, 460.)
It was further alleged that, during the commission of each of these offenses, defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a knife (Pen.Code § 12022, subd. (b), miscited in the amended information as subd. (d)), and that he inflicted great bodily injury on Weden, a person 60 years of age or older (id., § 1203.09, subd. (a)).
Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the allegations.
Trial was by jury. The panel returned a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged of the murder of Weden and fixed the degree at the first. It found true the accompanying allegations of the special circumstances of felony-murder robbery and felony-murder burglary. It also returned verdicts and findings to the effect that he committed robbery and burglary as charged, fixing the degree of each offense at the first. As to each offense, it found that he personally used a knife and that he inflicted great bodily injury on Weden, a person 60 years of age or older. It fixed the punishment for murder at death.
The superior court denied defendant's motion for a new trial and his automatic application for a modification of the verdict (Pen.Code, § 190.4, subd. (e)). For the murder of Weden, it imposed a penalty of death. For the robbery, it imposed the upper term of six years, plus an additional year for the use of the knife; for the burglary, it imposed the upper sentence of six years, but did not impose an additional year for the use of the knife; it ordered the robbery and burglary sentences to be served concurrently to each other and to the death penalty. It stayed execution of the sentences for robbery and burglary temporarily, pending execution of the penalty of death, and permanently thereafter. (Id., § 654.)
As we shall explain, we conclude that the judgment should be affirmed.
The People introduced evidence to the following effect.
In 1989, Yvonne Weden lived with her husband, Paul, in Oceanside. She was 65 years old and suffered from arthritis and loss of hearing and was using crutches because of an injury to her ankle. Paul worked nights at a supermarket; Yvonne usually went to bed around 11:30 p.m. and awoke early. She did not smoke; Paul had quit smoking in January. Even when he smoked, he did not do so in the house; he usually smoked Marlboro brand cigarettes, never Camel brand.
Defendant had lived in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with his mother for most of his life. In April or early May 1989, he lived with his half brother, Frank Orozco, and the latter's family in Oceanside, about a half-mile from the Weden home. He was not permitted to use the car, but he was able to use his brother's bicycle. He smoked Camel brand cigarettes. He earned money doing yard work in Oceanside and helped in his brother's business.
In May 1989, defendant came to the Weden's home and offered to do yard work, leaving his name and telephone number on a slip of paper. He was hired to perform yard work, mostly pulling weeds, for four days in late May. He stopped working for the Wedens when Paul became dissatisfied with the slowness of the work. The slip of paper with his name and telephone number remained pinned to a bulletin board in the den.
On Thursday, June 8, defendant knocked on the door of the Wedens' neighbor, asking for gardening work. The neighbor, who described him as appearing aggressive and nervous, did not hire him. The following day, Friday, June 9, he sought work at the home of another Oceanside resident, leaving his name and telephone number.
On June 9, at 7:45 p.m., Paul left the house. He finished work at 7:30 a.m. on June 10, went out for a "couple of beers" with some coworkers, and then, at 8:00 a.m., drove to pick up a new gardener but was unable to locate him. When he returned home, he was unable to open the garage door, his usual entry into the house. When he entered the house, he found his wife lying on the floor of the bedroom in her pajamas; there was blood on the wall and her body was cold. He called 911 at around 8:30 a.m.
The front door was unlocked and there was no sign of a forced entry. The slip of paper with defendant's name and telephone number was missing. A Camel brand filter cigarette butt was on the floor of the guest bedroom.
A jewelry box containing Paul's wedding ring, some Masonic rings, and other items, was missing from the master bedroom. The outer box in which it had been kept had a blood smear or stain on it. Some of Yvonne's jewelry was missing, including gold chains and costume jewelry, as was some cash. A pistol and holster were missing from a dresser.
The police arrived. Yvonne was pronounced dead at the scene. There was a bloody laceration around her neck and blood on her pajamas, the walls, and the carpet. Her wedding ring was missing from her finger.
She died from multiple stab wounds. The coroner estimated the time of death as occurring between midnight and 2:00 a.m. An autopsy showed blunt force injuries to her head and multiple stab wounds to her chest, shoulder, hands, and neck. The stab wounds were deep; there was a jagged gaping wound to the neck, and multiple punctures of the lungs, and a rib was fractured by the force of the knife. There were wounds and blood on the palm of her left hand. It was difficult to obtain fingerprints from the hand, because the fingers were clenched.
On the night of June 9, defendant telephoned his mother, Stella Orozco, in New Mexico. He left Oceanside for New Mexico on June 10, around 10:00 p.m, arriving on June 11. When she asked about cuts on his face, he said he had been injured in a robbery earlier the same week or the week before.
Later, she saw him take a plastic produce bag from her kitchen, go into the backyard, and place it in one of the cinder blocks on top of the wall between her yard and that of neighbors. The day after he arrived, he offered to sell some jewelry to his half sister, Theresa Romero, who lived next door. Theresa called the probation department the next day and told a probation officer that defendant was staying at their mother's house, and that he was selling jewelry.
On June 13, Theresa led police to the back room of Stella's home, where defendant was watching television. In the course of a patdown search, police discovered a small folding knife in his pocket. They also found hypodermic syringes in his sock and marijuana in his pocket. He had a packet of Camel brand filter cigarettes in his shirt pocket. Before he was taken into custody, he left a gold rope chain in the room; as he was removing articles from his pocket to leave behind, a foil packet containing tar heroin fell to the ground. Defendant told police he had been in Seattle for months and had returned to New Mexico to visit his ailing mother; he did not mention that he had been living in Oceanside.
After the police left, Theresa learned from Stella that defendant had hidden something in the wall "right in between everyone's yard." She telephoned the police to say that Stella wanted to turn over some items, and they returned that evening. Stella told them that she wanted them to remove things that were not hers; she gave them several articles, including a folding knife, and asked them to remove the plastic bag that defendant had placed in her backyard wall. The police saw a portion of a plastic bag protruding from a hole in a cinder block. They removed what proved to be two plastic produce bags with green writing on them, containing a paper bag from a Santa Fe drug store. The bags contained jewelry, later identified as including rings and other items belonging to Paul and Yvonne Weden. Stella also gave police a folding knife in a black sheath. They asked her for the gold rope chain he had left behind; she said "Absolutely" and also gave them some of his soiled laundry from the washing machine.
Detective Sheila Hancock, who was investigating the possibility that defendant was involved in the Weden crimes, contacted Santa Fe police to report the homicide in Oceanside involving theft of jewelry. She flew to New Mexico on June 13, and searched the residence of Stella Orozco. She also saw defendant at the police department; she noticed he was smoking Camel brand cigarettes.
Several items, including the cigarette butt, a dinner knife, a jewelry case, a sock, and knives, were tested at the Serological Research Institute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nash, A123128 (Cal. App. 12/18/2009)
...the crime scene under circumstances suggesting that his movement was motivated by a consciousness of guilt.' [Citation.]" (People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 517.) "`"`[F]light requires neither the physical act of running nor the reaching of a far-away haven. [Citation.] Flight manifes......
-
People v. Casique, A113636 (Cal. App. 5/29/2009)
...pattern must be considered on its own merits, and the trial court is vested with reasonable discretion in the matter." ' (People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 516.)" (People v. Williams (2006) 40 Cal.4th 287, "The decision to admit evidence under Evidence Code section 1240 is reviewed fo......
-
People v. Caro
...a hearing so a party can secure the presence of a witness is one within the trial court's discretion. ( People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 504, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 966 P.2d 521.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance unless the defendant establishes good ......
-
People v. Boyce
...an offer to stipulate" People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 545, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182 ). In People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 966 P.2d 521, we upheld admission of spontaneous statements of the victim's husband to a 911 dispatcher and to an officer des......
-
Table of Cases null
...§3.3.1(2)(b) People v. Royal, 43 Cal. App. 5th 121, 256 Cal. Rptr. 3d 281 (4th Dist. 2019)—Ch. 3-B, §1.2.2; §14.2.4 People v. Roybal, 19 Cal. 4th 481, 19 Cal. 4th 1231a, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 487, 966 P.2d 521 (1998)—Ch. 2, §11.3.2(2)(b); Ch. 3-B, §17.4.2 People v. Rubio, 71 Cal. App. 3d 757, 13......
-
Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
...(2) the expert is qualified, and (3) the correct scientific procedures were used in the particular case. People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 505; see Evid. C. §405(a) (court indicates which party has burden of proof as implied by rule of law under which question arises). (c) Preliminary......
-
Table of cases
...17:60 Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 193, 122 Cal. App. 2d 459, §4:30 Roybal, People v. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 481, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 487, §9:130 R.R., In re (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 765, §10:90 Rubio v. Superior Court (1988) 202 ......
-
Hearsay
...hours after the crime by an eyewitness who was crying, shaking and visibly upset when he made the statement. People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 481, 515, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 487. A husband came home to discover his wife covered in blood and not breathing. He immediately called 911 and gave a ......