People v. Arias

Decision Date11 April 1996
Docket NumberNo. S014356,S014356
Citation51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770,13 Cal.4th 92,913 P.2d 980
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 913 P.2d 980, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2575, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4243 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Pedro ARIAS, Defendant and Appellant.

Fern M. Laethem, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, John Fresquez and Alison Pease, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Garnand Venturi and Alison Elle Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAXTER, Associate Justice.

In charges arising out of an incident on May 23, 1987, a jury convicted defendant Pedro Arias of one count of first degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189) 1 and three counts of robbery (§ 211). As to each count, it was found true that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The jury also found, as a special circumstance under the 1978 death penalty law, that the murder occurred in the commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i).)

Additional charges arising from a separate incident on June 5, 1987, were tried jointly to the same jury. The jury convicted defendant of two counts of robbery, one count of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), one count of kidnapping for purposes of robbery

Page 784

(§ 209), two counts of vaginal penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), two counts of attempted sodomy (§§ 286, subd. (c), 664), one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)), and two counts of rape (§ 261, former subd. (2), now § 261, subd. (a)(2)). As to each count, it was found true that defendant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated trial, the jury found that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for shooting into an inhabited dwelling (§ 246), and had served a prison term for that crime within five years before committing the current offenses. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)

After a separate trial on the issue of penalty, the jury sentenced defendant to death for the murder. Defendant's automatic motion for modification of the death verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) was denied. The trial court also sentenced defendant to a total of 69 years, 4 months, on the noncapital convictions and enhancements. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)

We find no prejudicial error affecting either the guilt or penalty trials. We will therefore affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Trial.
1. Beacon Gas Station Incident-May 23, 1987.

In late May 1987, defendant, 24 years old, was living with a group in a house on Lemon Hill Avenue in Sacramento. For transportation, he was using his mother's 1968 red-primered Plymouth. The driver's door of the Plymouth was jammed, and because the passenger door would not latch, it had to be tied shut with a rope.

James (Jimmy) Valdez, a friend of defendant, had recently come to stay at the Lemon Hill house. He was contributing to the household by "boosting" (i.e, stealing) food. On May 23, 1987, defendant and Valdez spent the day drinking beer and tequila at the house. Sometime early in the evening, defendant's girlfriend, Yolanda Gomez, remarked that "[s]ince Jimmy's here, we got everything." Defendant responded by saying to Valdez, "Let's take a ride." Both men were intoxicated at this point, but defendant was able to speak, walk, and drive normally.

With defendant driving the Plymouth, the two men arrived at the Beacon gasoline station at 44th Street and Fruitridge Road. The station includes a small convenience store. Two clerks, Tina Cheatam and John Waltrip, were on duty inside the store. Each clerk was responsible for a particular cash register and had the only key for that register. Also in the store was Lawrence Galvin, a district manager for the Beacon chain.

Around 8 p.m., Waltrip and Galvin were in the rear of the store, restocking the display of cold beverages. Waltrip, who was out of sight in the storage cooler, was passing merchandise through to Galvin, who was standing in front of the beverage cases. Defendant and Valdez entered the store and walked toward the beverage cases. Valdez grabbed a 12-pack of beer and ran out.

As Cheatam yelled for Valdez to stop, defendant grabbed her from behind and held a knife to her hip. Galvin began to move forward, and defendant told him to "freeze." Defendant then ordered Cheatam to open her register. Cheatam was standing in front of Waltrip's register and tried to tell defendant she did not have the key to open it. Defendant grew angrier, shouted obscenities, and continued to demand money.

Cheatam became hysterical, pounded hopelessly on Waltrip's register, and indicated to defendant that the "other clerk" would have to open it. Defendant told her, "Well, get the guy out here." Cheatam then screamed "several times" for Waltrip. Waltrip finally emerged from the back room and said, "Here I am." Approaching from behind defendant, Waltrip stepped up onto the slightly elevated register area, causing the floor to creak. At this moment, according to Galvin, defendant turned, placed his left hand on Waltrip's right shoulder, pulled Waltrip toward him, drew back his right elbow to a 90-degree angle, and "very, very violently" thrust the knife into Waltrip's midsection. The blow made a "thunk" sound, like a fist hitting a punching bag. Waltrip doubled

Page 785

over and stumbled into the store's back office.

Meanwhile, Cheatam had managed to open her own register. Defendant reached in and swept the cash out of the till with a deft scooping motion. In doing so, he triggered a hidden camera, which sequentially photographed ensuing stages of the holdup. While the robbery was in progress, Edgar Calderon entered to pay for some gas, but Calderon withdrew when defendant told him to "get the hell out."

After cleaning out Cheatam's register, defendant brandished the knife at Galvin and forced him to lie down on the floor. Defendant then left. 2

Outside, Valdez was waiting in the passenger seat of the Plymouth, puzzled by the delay and anxious to depart with the stolen beer. When defendant approached the car at a run, Valdez slid behind the wheel and defendant got in the passenger side. They sped away northbound on 44th Street. At the first intersection, Valdez started to turn right, but defendant told him it was a dead end, and Valdez swerved back onto 44th Street. As he did so, Calderon, who was keeping the vehicle in sight, saw the passenger door fly open.

After defendant had departed from the store, Galvin locked the front door and entered the back office. There Waltrip was lying unconscious with the telephone in his hand. Galvin took the telephone and called the police.

Waltrip died of his wound during emergency surgery. The cause of death was loss of blood. The knife had penetrated to a depth of nine or ten inches, passing completely through Waltrip's abdominal wall and liver and piercing the front wall of the aorta.

Defendant and Valdez returned to the Lemon Hill house and divided the money from the robbery, either $45 or $90. Valdez heard defendant tell Gomez he had robbed the Beacon store. Gomez's friend Sonya White also overheard this comment and defendant implied that White should forget what she had heard.

Later the same evening, defendant and Victor Trejo went on a quest to obtain drugs. They were driving a van owned by Trejo's father. Defendant had avoided using the Plymouth because it was "a little warm." At one point, Trejo wanted to return the van to his father, but defendant pulled a knife and held it to Trejo's neck. Defendant told Trejo he did not want to have to make a "movita," or move, on Trejo, "like he already did to someone else." Trejo complied with defendant's demand to continue on in the van.

Trejo eventually dropped defendant off at the Lemon Hill house. At defendant's request, Valdez then went with defendant in the Plymouth to obtain still more drugs. Late that night, defendant discussed the Beacon robbery and told Valdez, "I think I killed somebody."

The next day, defendant and Valdez walked to a nearby store and bought a newspaper. The paper contained an account of the Beacon robbery, including a description of the red Plymouth. Defendant read the story and told Valdez "[t]hat the guy died at the gas station."

When defendant and Valdez returned from the store, defendant moved the Plymouth into the back yard of the Lemon Hill house, where the police later found it. Valdez asked defendant what he had done with the knife used to kill Waltrip. Defendant went to the kitchen and grabbed a knife, which Valdez described as about 12 inches long. Valdez took the knife and broke it up with his hands. 3 Valdez then made plans to "split" the Lemon Hill house immediately.

Sometime after the Beacon incident, defendant met his mother, Adeline Rodriguez, in a park. Crying, defendant told her he had

Page 786

robbed the Beacon station and killed a man there, though he "didn't mean to do that." According to defendant, somebody had grabbed his shoulder from behind, and he turned. Defendant said he did not want to go to prison and needed time to get away and think. A couple of days later, defendant called Rodriguez and asked for money.

About two weeks after the Beacon incident, Valdez saw defendant at McClatchy High School. Defendant told Valdez, "Don't worry about nothing, home boy, I ride my own beef." Defendant acted paranoid, said homicide detectives were at his house, and indicated he wanted to go to Mexico.

Defendant presented a single witness, Dr. Gwen Hall, a forensic pathologist. Based on the autopsy report, she disputed the depth of Waltrip's wound and opined that the autopsy findings were not consistent with a violent, audible knife blow such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1174 cases
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 Mayo 2021
    ...a misconduct claim on appeal "unless an objection would have been futile or an admonition ineffective." ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 159, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) Under state law, when the claim "focuses on comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question i......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 2018
    ...( People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 387, fn. 1, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328, 349 P.3d 1028, quoting People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 135, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) Accordingly, "we must determine whether the trial court correctly ruled that the defense did not demonstrate discrim......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 2001
    ...20 Cal.4th 701, 745; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 663-664; People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 723; People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 134-135; People v. Davenport (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1171, 1199-1200; People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 164-165; People v. Garceau (199......
  • People v. Cornejo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Mayo 2016
    ...which ‘have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission ... in evidence.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.) We review the trial court's determination of whether or not to admit evidence under this provision for abuse of dis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • Character and habit
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...admissible to establish motive to commit the charged crimes. CHARACTER & HABIT 11-17 Character and Habit §11:10 People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 92, 127-128, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770. In a kidnapping and robbery case, evidence of crimes committed 13 days earlier was relevant to show the defen......
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...J. (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 97, 123, 58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 246. An attack on the credibility of witnesses is proper. People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 92, 162, 182, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770. You may comment on the credibility of a witness by discussing any of the following: • The witness’ testimony......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Cal.Rptr.3d 491, §2:190 Arevalo-Iraheta, People v. (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1574, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363, §19:130 Arias, People v. (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 92, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770, §§7:150, 9:90, 9:120, 9:130, 11:10, 21:100, 21:120 Armstrong, People v. (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 735, 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...v. Melendez (2016) 2 Cal. 5th 1, 25, 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 49. The evidence is admissible even if it is self-serving. People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 92, 156, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770. Whether a subsequent statement is part of the same conversation or necessary to make the prior statement unders......
  • 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