Noguera v. Davis

Decision Date20 July 2021
Docket Number18-99000,Nos. 17-99010,s. 17-99010
Parties William A. NOGUERA, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Ronald DAVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Meredith S. White (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Holly D. Wilkens, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Julie L. Garland and Ronald S. Matthias, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, California; for Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Emily J.M. Groendyke (argued) and Celeste Bacchi, Deputy Federal Public Defenders; Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California; for Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Susan P. Graber and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Chief Judge Thomas

BADE, Circuit Judge:

In 1987, William Noguera was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in California state court. The State appeals the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief on numerous claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Noguera cross-appeals the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief on his constitutional challenge to California's financial-gain special circumstance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

I.
A.

In the early morning of April 24, 1983, Jovita Navarro ("Jovita") was found dead in the bedroom of her home.1 The police found Jovita when they responded to a 911 call from Jovita's neighbor, Mindy Jackson. It appeared that Jovita was killed during a burglary and rape—she was on the bed with her nightgown pulled up to her neck, the bed sheets were on the floor, and a jewelry box that normally sat on a dresser was found on the floor in the hall with its contents scattered along the hallway.

Jovita had been severely beaten; she suffered at least eighteen blows to the head and face. She had "extensive facial injuries" and depressed fractures on her skull

, and her scalp had been torn loose from her head. People v. Noguera , 4 Cal.4th 599, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d 1160, 1165 (1992). She had "defensive wounds" on her arms and hands and "oval shaped wounds" on her left thigh.2

Id. The examining pathologist testified that Jovita did not die from the extensive beating, but from asphyxiation "induced by pressing a rounded object against her throat with such force that her larynx was crushed, choking off her airway." Id. But the pathologist also testified that, had she not been asphyxiated, Jovita would have died from "the severity of the beating." Id.

At the time of her death, Jovita had a $13,000 life insurance policy, $14,000 in accumulated retirement benefits, and a house with a market value of around $90,000 with a mortgage balance of $7,000. She also carried "mortgage insurance in the event of her death." Id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1166. Her sixteen-year-old daughter Dominique Navarro was her sole heir.

In the bedroom, the police investigators found a bloodstained tonfa—a martial arts weapon—that was "shattered in two pieces." Id., 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1165. The police recovered a bloodstained wooden dowel from a neighboring yard, and a bloodied leather glove from a nearby yard. The blood was consistent with Jovita's blood. Investigators determined that the crime scene had been staged to appear like a burglary and rape because there were no signs of forced entry, no missing valuables, and no signs of sexual trauma on Jovita's body. The blood-spatter analysis suggested that the bed sheets were removed "and arranged on the floor after the murder" and that Jovita was murdered before her the room was rifled. Id., 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1166.

The on-scene criminalist estimated the time of death as sometime between 12:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m., but later revised the approximate time of death to 4:45 a.m. An autopsy report estimated that Jovita died sometime between 12:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m.

The police interviewed Jovita's neighbor, Mindy Jackson, who told them that she and her husband had a guest on the night of the murder, Tom Brooks. Jackson, her husband, and Brooks all heard loud noises coming from Jovita's house around 11:00 p.m., and Brooks testified that he heard "really radical noises" later that night. Id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1167. The three went outside around 1:45 a.m. They heard Jovita's dogs barking; no lights were on at the house.

From interviews with Jackson and Jovita's co-worker, Margaret Garcia, investigators learned that the relationships between Jovita, Dominique, and Dominique's boyfriend, Noguera, were rocky. The three had argued about Dominique's curfew violations and a sharp decline in her school attendance and performance that began after she started dating Noguera. Jovita and Dominique also had disagreements about Dominique's pregnancy with Noguera's child and her subsequent abortion. Jovita wanted to keep Dominique away from Noguera, and she considered moving or even hiring a "hit man" to kill him. Id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1166.

Garcia said that, about two weeks before Jovita's murder, Jovita told her she woke up in the middle of the night and found the front door open, all the outdoor lights off, and Dominique wandering the house with no explanation for opening the front door. Jackson said that, a few weeks before the murder, she observed Jovita scream into the telephone, slam down the receiver, and express frustration. Jovita said that she "hated" Noguera and did not want to hear his name again. Jovita also said: "If he is going to use his karate on me, he has another thing coming." Id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1167 (alteration omitted).

Dominique told police investigators that on the night of Jovita's death, she went to a party with Noguera. They left the party around 11:30 p.m. and went out to eat with a friend. She got home around 1:30 or 2:00 a.m. She went to bed and awoke a few hours later to the sound of "muffled noises coming from her mother's adjacent bedroom." Id., 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1165. A few minutes later she heard her mother screaming, "get out, mi hija." Id. Dominique stayed in her bedroom for a bit and then fled the house in hysterics and ran to the home of a neighbor, who called 911.

The evidence presented at trial linking Noguera to the murder included the testimony of Ricky Abram and Steven Arce. Abram testified that, about two months before Jovita's murder, he drove with Noguera to pick up Dominique, and the three of them went to Bob's Big Boy restaurant where they talked about killing Jovita. Dominique and Noguera shared their plan to stage a burglary and rape and asked Abram to "fake the burglary and take any items of value." Id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1167. Dominique would let Noguera and Abram into the house. Noguera would shoot Jovita and, after the murder, Dominique would have intercourse with Noguera and then run next door to report a rape and burglary. Noguera promised to give Abram "$5,000 from the $25,000 ... from the mother's insurance" and to let him live with Noguera and Dominique in Jovita's "house [that] would be passed on to [Dominique] after the mom's death." See id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1167–68. About a week and a half before the meeting at Bob's Big Boy, Noguera had asked Abram about getting a gun. Abram considered the murder scheme a "joke," and he did not see Noguera or Dominique again until the trial. See id. , 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 400, 842 P.2d at 1168.

Steven Arce testified that he had seen the tonfa found at the murder scene, and other tonfas, in Noguera's car about a month before Jovita's death. He had also seen Noguera "wearing tan leather motorcycle gloves on occasion." Id. A few weeks before the murder, he heard Noguera complain that Jovita was impeding his relationship with Dominique and heard Noguera say "he wanted to kill that bitch," referring to Jovita. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

After Jovita's death, her house was rented out, and Dominique lived with her uncle. Dominique frequently spoke to Noguera on the phone from her uncle's house. Her uncle testified that one time, after Dominique finished a call with Noguera, he overheard her complain that she did not want to contact the family attorney, who was Dominique's cousin. That attorney confirmed that, after the murder, Dominique frequently contacted him about insurance and the estate, including how long it would take to process and the amount owed to creditors. During one call she was "very emphatic ... that she did not want the house to be sold." Id. That June, Noguera's mother, Sarita Salinas ("Salinas"), attended a meeting with the family attorney and another attorney, during which the possibility of Dominique's emancipation was discussed.3 Dominique was seventeen at that time.

B.

In December 1983, authorities arrested Dominique and Noguera and charged them with Jovita's murder.4 Noguera was charged with first-degree murder. He presented an alibi defense and testified at his trial. He described his relations with Jovita as "fair." He denied knowledge of Jovita's life insurance.

Noguera testified that he had lunch with Abram and Dominique at Bob's Big Boy. Noguera said he talked to Abram about selling him a car engine, and Dominique complained about Jovita's punishing her for breaking curfew. Noguera said he had studied martial arts, but he was not trained to use a tonfa and had never owned one.

Noguera denied involvement in the murder. He testified that, on the night of the murder, he and Dominique went to a party and then out to eat with a friend, he dropped Dominique off at her house around 2:00 a.m., and he then went home. He chatted with his mother and grandmother and went to bed. Around 3:30 a.m., he heard a knock on his window. His friend Margaret Noone...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Creech v. Richardson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 Julio 2022
    ...was represented by a private attorney.Therefore, no actual conflict existed at the time of George's deposition. See Noguera v. Davis , 5 F.4th 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2021) ("An ‘actual conflict’ means a ‘conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel's performance,’ not simply ‘a theoret......
  • Sanders v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 13 Enero 2022
    ...this case, the jury recommended the death penalty without knowing anything about [Sanders]'s troubled background." Noguera v. Davis , 5 F.4th 1020, 1043 (9th Cir. 2021). Sanders's "counsel did nothing to counterbalance the prosecutor's view of [Sanders] or to portray [Sanders] as a human be......
  • Demetrulias v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 23 Septiembre 2021
    ...court's final resolution of those claims constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law." Noguera v. Davis , 5 F.4th 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2021).III.A. Victim Character Evidence Demetrulias argues that the trial court violated his right to due process when it allo......
  • Rangel v. Broomfield
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 21 Agosto 2023
    ... ... at 187) ... (“[s]ection 2254(d) applies even where there has been a ... summary denial[.]”); Ochoa v. Davis, 50 F.4th ... 865, 888 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[A]ccordingly, we take this ... opportunity to make explicit what has to this point been ... personality and character at the time of the capital crime ... Cf. Noguera v. Davis , 5 F.4th 1020, 1043 (9th Cir ... 2021) (“In this case, the jury recommended the death ... penalty without knowing anything ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Dist. 2019)—Ch. 2, §13.1.2(9) Noah G., In re, 247 Cal. App. 4th 1292, 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 91 (2d Dist. 2016)—Ch. 1, §4.8.6 Noguera v. Davis, 5 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2021)—Ch. 8, §1.1.1(1)(b)[1] North v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 3d 301, 104 Cal. Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, 57 A.L.R.3d 155 (1972)—Ch......
  • Chapter 8 - §1. Burdens
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 8 Burdens & Presumptions
    • Invalid date
    ...of a charged crime in order to obtain a conviction. See Carella v. California (1989) 491 U.S. 263, 265; Noguera v. Davis (9th Cir.2021) 5 F.4th 1020, 1054; see also Evid. C. §520 (party claiming that person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has burden of proof on that issue); People v. Potts......

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