People v. Ayala

Decision Date08 June 2000
Docket NumberNo. S009108.,S009108.
Citation96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682,23 Cal.4th 225,1 P.3d 3
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronaldo Medrano AYALA, Defendant and Appellant.

Andrew Parnes, Ketchum, ID, and E. Evans Young, Oakland, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson and David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Laura Whitcomb Halgren, William M. Wood and Steven T. Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MOSK, J.

The San Diego County District Attorney filed an amended information on January 20, 1987, charging defendant with three murders and other offenses. The information alleged that the crimes all occurred on or about April 26, 1985.

Count 1 charged defendant with murder in the death of Jose Luis Rositas (Pen. Code, § 187; all unlabeled statutory references are to this code). Counts 2 and 3 contained the same charge in the deaths of Marcos Antonio Zamora and Ernesto Dominguez Mendez respectively. Count 4 charged him with the attempted murder of Pedro Castillo (§§ 187, 664), and count 5 with robbing him (§ 211). Count 6, which the trial court later dismissed, and which the jury did not consider, charged him with robbing Zamora. Counts 7, 8, and 9 charged him with the attempted robbery of Dominguez, Rositas, and Zamora respectively (§§ 211, 664). The first six counts were accompanied by allegations that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5).

The amended information alleged that defendant committed the special circumstances of multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and murder while attempting to commit robbery (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i); see now § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)).

The amended information further alleged that defendant had been convicted of other offenses: second degree burglary (§ 459) and unlawful use of a motor vehicle (Veh.Code, § 10851) in San Diego County in 1971, crimes for which he received probation; robbery (§ 211) in San Diego County in 1973, possessing a deadly weapon in prison (§ 4502) in Monterey County in 1974, first degree burglary (§ 459) in San Diego County in 1980, and possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350) in 1981, those four crimes falling within the ambit of section 667.5, subdivision (b); and that the robbery and first degree burglary also constituted serious felonies under sections 667, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c).

The case was called for trial on April 15, 1988. On October 12, 1988, the jury convicted defendant of all the offenses charged. (None of the determinate terms are at issue here.) The jury also found, with respect to the remaining counts where it was alleged, and also with respect to the charge of attempting to rob Zamora (count 8 as renumbered), that defendant had personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5. It further found the special circumstance allegations true. Defendant waived his right to have the prior offense allegations tried before a jury, and the court found them true.

Following a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death on counts 1, 2, and 3 on December 12, 1988, and the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. The appeal to this court is automatic.

The Guilt Phase
Facts

The defendant herein, Ronaldo Medrano Ayala, and his brother Hector Juan Ayala, murdered Dominguez, Rositas and Zamora after holding them captive in an automobile repair shop. The Ayalas would have killed their fourth intended murder victim, Castillo, but he improvised an escape plan and, though shot, survived. The prosecution also presented evidence that a third man, Jose Moreno (also known as Joe Moreno and Joseph Suarez Moreno and by his nickname Cucuy)1 helped to perpetrate the crimes.

Castillo provided the information that led to defendant's arrest and served as the prosecution's key witness at trial.

The People were represented by William Woodward and Gloria Michaels; defendant by Elisabeth Semel and Robert Boyce. Opening statements and presentation of evidence began on August 3, 1988. San Diego Police Detective Richard Carey testified that on April 26, 1985, his homicide team was summoned to the New Life automobile detailing and body repair shop located at 999 South Forty-third Street, on the east side of that street between Logan and National Avenues in southeast San Diego. He found Dominguez's, Zamora's and Rositas's bodies in the shop office. All had been shot. A forensic pathologist, Dr. David Masamichi Katsuyama, testified that each had died from two gunshots to the head.

Prosecution Case

The prosecution theorized that the murders resulted from a robbery attempt that failed because it was based on the perpetrators' incorrect speculation that Dominguez had just returned from Mexico with a quantity of narcotics or cash. Castillo testified that a week before the killings he spoke with Hector Ayala about Dominguez's whereabouts. Dominguez was in jail, apparently for minor offenses. An investigator testified that Dominguez was released the day before his murder. But Dominguez told Castillo to tell anybody asking that he was in Mexico, and Castillo so told Hector Ayala. The prosecution told the jury in its opening statement that Dominguez invented the story about Mexico because he was embarrassed about being in jail and did not want his whereabouts disclosed.

Juan Manuel Meza provided important testimony regarding motive and intent. Meza, a heroin addict at the time of the murders who had a $100- to $200-per-day habit, testified that about a month before the killings defendant, in the presence of Meza and Hector Ayala, proposed to rob the automobile body shop. About a week after that event, Hector Ayala told Meza that Dominguez had gone to Tijuana to buy drugs. Nine days before the murders Meza attended a meeting that Hector Ayala had called at his house. Defendant was also present. As defendant prepared to use heroin in the living room, Hector Ayala emerged from the bedroom displaying a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in poor condition. He asked Meza if he could use some of Meza's guns, which were of better quality, for the impending robbery. The three discussed a plan for the crime, in which they would be the only participants; defendant said, in Meza's words, that it would be "easy ... to just go in, line them all up, lay them down, tie them up and wait for [the victims to divulge the location of] the drugs" and money—one pound of heroin and $10,000—that they believed Dominguez would have after his trip to Mexico. Defendant asked Meza to perform the task of binding the victims. During the planning meeting defendant said, in Meza's words, that "we didn't want any witnesses" and "that they were to die." They were prepared to kill as many as five people if necessary to ensure that no witnesses remained alive.

Meza testified that he told defendant and Hector Ayala that he would provide the requested guns and participate in the robbery, but that the promise was a falsehood. Rather, because he feared that he would be killed in the aftermath, he did not intend to do anything.

The weekend before the murders, Meza encountered Hector Ayala and Moreno by chance at a liquor store in National City. They went to Hector Ayala's house to use drugs, and Hector Ayala asked Moreno to be the driver for the planned robbery. Moreno agreed, and offered to bring a .22-caliber gun.

Two days before the killings, Hector Ayala told Meza to stand by at his house to be picked up between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on the day of the murders. Meza continued to pretend that he would participate, but instead, he left his house early in the afternoon of the day of the killings, and did not return until about 10:00 p.m. Meza's wife testified that Hector Ayala appeared at their house at 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. that day, that her husband was not there at either time, and that Ayala was annoyed.

Meza acknowledged in court that he was convicted of robbery in 1975, attempted taking of another's motor vehicle in 1985, and possession for sale of cocaine in 1987, and that he was still incarcerated for the drug offense. He testified that in exchange for his agreeing to testify in this case the district attorney's office had arranged to protect his family, and also would ask his sentencing judge to reconsider his sentence and order his release from prison. His agreement with the prosecution required him to testify truthfully, and he had signed a document to that effect.

Castillo testified that Dominguez returned to work the day before the killings and was drinking and chatting in the body shop with all three perpetrators.

Castillo was Dominguez's employee. He testified that Dominguez and Zamora, who was Dominguez's brother-in-law, ran a heroin distribution business at the shop. Castillo volunteered on direct examination that on occasion he had helped distribute heroin from the premises. Defendant and Hector Ayala would visit the shop, retreat into the office, and reappear showing symptoms of having used heroin inside. Evidently either Dominguez or Zamora would sell it to them. Castillo, who was himself a user of heroin until the day of the murders, could obtain a better grade of the drug elsewhere and thus did not buy it from the body shop.

Castillo testified that he first saw defendant appear at Dominguez's shop about four months before the killings, and thereafter he visited two to three times a week, usually in the company of Hector Ayala or Moreno. From the time that Dominguez acquired the business, Hector Ayala also had been a regular visitor.

About noon on the day of the killings, Castillo injected a dose of heroin off the premises and returned to work at the shop. The drug had a stabilizing effect on Castillo, who also testified that using it that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1229 cases
  • People v. Montes
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 2021
    ...of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ "]; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 253, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3 [" ‘ " ‘Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.’ " ’ "......
  • Dominguez v. Trimble
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 21, 2012
    ...of Rodriguez's denial to police of gang membership would have amounted to impeachment on a collateral matter. (See People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 301.) Moreover, proving membership in a criminal street gang could very well have led to a trial within a trial on the issue, resulting i......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...impermissible." ( People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 601, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347 ; see also People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 304, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3.) "To the extent defendant argues that the same incident may not be considered as a special circumstance and ......
  • People v. Huynh
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 2018
    ...trial. We review a trial court's ruling regarding discovery matters under an abuse of discretion standard. ( People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3.) An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court misapplies the law. ( Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc . (2013) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...During the readback, the jurors may stop the court reporter once they are satisfied they have heard enough. People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 225, 289, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682. Transcripts. Counsel may stipulate to submitting transcripts of requested testimony to the jury. People v. Odle (198......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 475, §20:80 Ayala, People v. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 243, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532, §§8:10, 16:110, 17:140 Ayala, People v. (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 225, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682, §§6:90, 6:100, 9:20, 9:80, 22:120 Ayers, People v. (2005) 125 Cal. App. 4th 988, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242, §9:150 Azcona......
  • Witness competence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...a challenge is made to the competency of a witness, the court may defer ruling until after direct examination. People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 225, 265, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682. The court may decline to hold a pretrial hearing or permit voir dire of the witness prior to direct examination, ......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...exception to the hearsay rule rooted in tradition or trustworthiness, hearsay evidence is considered unreliable. People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 225, 268-269, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682. A statement that is offered for any relevant purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter stated is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT