People v. Bonilla

Decision Date18 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. S045184.,S045184.
Citation60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209,160 P.3d 84,41 Cal.4th 313
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Wayne BONILLA, Defendant and Appellant.

David A. Nickerson, San Rafael, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias and Bruce Ortega, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WERDEGAR, J.

A jury convicted defendant Steven Wayne Bonilla of first degree murder with murder-for-financial-gain and lying-in-wait special circumstances for the 1987 killing of Jerry Lee Harris. (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 189, 190.2, subd. (a)(1), 190.2, former subd. (a)(15).)1 Bonilla's first penalty phase trial ended in a hung jury; at his second penalty phase trial, the jury returned a death verdict. On automatic appeal, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Factual and Procedural Background

Guilt Phase Trial

Prosecution Evidence

Jerry Lee Harris was a San Francisco Bay Area entrepreneur. Harris and Bonilla were longtime friends, and Bonilla occasionally assisted Harris with his business ventures. In particular, Bonilla invested in a Harris plant nursery and rental business, Tiffany's, and in a Harris rebar fabricating business, and managed a Harris lounge, the Penthouse.

In 1986, Harris decided to open a Cupertino nightclub called Baritz. As he had on some previous occasions, he borrowed $232,000 in seed money from Bonilla's mother. Bonilla supposedly could not formally become a partner in Baritz until 1989 because of Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations, but in March 1987, Harris and Bonilla nevertheless signed an agreement giving Bonilla an interim 40 percent stake in Baritz,

Baritz was quickly successful, and Bonilla began receiving $5,000 monthly checks from its operating profits. However, Bonilla and Harris had a series of disagreements over how much say Bonilla would have in Baritz's operations, as well as those of other Harris-owned restaurants and clubs. Harris directed Don Baptist, Baritz's landlord, who had access to its books because of the nature of the lease agreement, to prevent Bonilla from accessing those books; Bonilla complained to Baptist that he was being treated unfairly and sought access to Baritz's financial information to determine whether Harris was living up to their partnership agreement. Harris and Bonilla argued again in August or September 1987 when Bonilla agreed to loan Harris $8,000, but the check he provided bounced. In September and October 1987, Bonilla received no payments from Baritz.

The prosecution presented details of what followed principally through the testimony of Bradley George Keyes. In October 1987, Bonilla got in touch with Keyes, an old Nevada acquaintance; explained that he had "something going" with their mutual acquaintance, William Nichols; and arranged to meet with Keyes in Elko, Nevada. There, he explained to Keyes that he had a business partner who was treating him unfairly, but he could not take legal action because the partner had doctored the books. Bonilla claimed the partner owed him more than $1 million on a plant deal and was hiding nightclub profits he owed Bonilla. Bonilla said the partner deserved to die and if he did, Bonilla would be able to take over the partner's businesses and skim tax-free money. As a result, "everybody would be rich."

Keyes then flew to the San Francisco Bay Area and met with Nichols. Nichols explained that Bonilla's business partner, Harris, was cheating Bonilla, and Bonilla and Nichols were working on a way to kill Harris. Over the next few days, Nichols and Keyes scouted Harris's businesses and discussed ways to kill him and dispose of the body. They failed to develop a concrete plan, and Bonilla paid to fly Keyes back to Nevada, while Nichols returned home to Phoenix, Arizona. Bonilla told Keyes to return when they had a plan worked out.

Days later, on or about October 12, Bonilla or Nichols wired Keyes money to return to the Bay Area and the three met again. Bonilla explained he was running out of money, so Harris needed to be killed soon. Once Harris was dead, Bonilla would be able to push Harris's wife, Susan, aside, take over Harris's businesses, and start skimming money. Bonilla believed that because Harris had cheated many people, there would be many suspects if Harris died. Keyes and Nichols spent more days trying to plan how to kill Harris, while Bonilla grew increasingly impatient. One evening, Bonilla had dinner with Harris and his wife, while Nichols and Keyes waited outside, but they decided not to grab Harris yet because there were too many potential witnesses. With no plan in place, Keyes again returned to Nevada and Nichols to Arizona, while Bonilla tried to figure out how to lure Harris to a more secluded place so Keyes and Nichols could kill him.

On October 19, Keyes and Nichols returned for a third time and met with Bonilla. The next day, Nichols explained the plan to Keyes: Bonilla would bring Harris to a vacant office park in Pleasanton, purportedly to meet with a real estate agent to see some commercial space for one of Harris's businesses. Nichols would pose as the agent, Keyes as a security guard. They would jump Harris, duct tape and handcuff him, put him in Bonilla's pickup truck, plant Harris's car at an airport in Sacramento to make it appear he had flown off, and dispose of Harris's body.

Consistent with this plan, Bonilla arranged with Harris to have drinks and then show him the office space. When they arrived at the deserted office park parking lot after 8:30 p.m., Nichols and Keyes were there waiting. Keyes, playing the part of a security guard, wrote down a few license plate numbers, then joined Nichols, Bonilla, and Harris. Nichols suddenly sprayed Harris with Mace, and Keyes grabbed Harris and fell to the ground with him. Bonilla walked off to move the rental car Nichols had arrived in. Nichols and Keyes carried the struggling Harris to Bonilla's pickup truck and threw him in the back, then Nichols covered Harris's head in duct tape. Bonilla returned, helped Keyes start Harris's car, and told Keyes as Keyes pulled out to follow Nichols, who was driving the pickup truck: "See you later, and be careful."

Nichols and Keyes left Harris's car in a Sacramento airport parking lot, determined Harris had suffocated, and finally settled on a remote Nevada location to dispose of his body. They removed his ring arid the duct tape, dug a shallow grave, and buried him.

The next morning, Susan Harris, concerned about her husband's absence, called Bonilla to ask if he had seen him. Bonilla replied, "No, why?" After Susan pointed out that Bonilla had been with her husband the night before and then at an office park, Bonilla replied, "Yes, at [the bar], why?" and "Yeah, in Pleasanton, why?" He denied any knowledge of where Harris had gone after the office park visit; they had gone their separate ways. When Harris's brother Sandy asked Bonilla about Harris's whereabouts later that day, Bonilla indicated Harris had taken off to a meeting after they met for drinks.

Within a week of Harris's disappearance, Bonilla showed up at Baritz to examine the financial records. However, he was unable to seize immediate control of Harris's businesses; instead, he and Susan Harris plunged into litigation.

In January 1988, a rock hunter found Harris's body. In February 1988, Harris's car was found at the Sacramento airport. Authorities followed leads that eventually led them to Keyes, who, after offering several shifting alibis, made a deal with prosecutors that he would testify against Nichols and Bonilla and receive a sentence no greater than three years in state prison. Over a period of five months, Keyes cooperated by placing taped phone calls to Nichols and Bonilla to obtain incriminating statements. Thereafter, Nichols and Bonilla were arrested and tried jointly.

Defense Evidence

The defense focused on differences between Keyes's trial testimony and earlier statements he had made to the police and others. In addition, Bonilla testified in his own defense and offered a slightly different version of events.

During initial statements to the Nevada police in March 1988, Keyes said he met with Harris to intimidate him into signing over his businesses to Bonilla. He denied knowing of any plan to murder Harris. He claimed to have left the office park parking lot with Harris still alive. Keyes did not learn Harris was dead until they got to Nevada, at which point Nichols explained things had gotten out of hand. Keyes made similar statements to a bail bondsman friend near the time of his arrest.

In April 1988, Keyes spoke with a church minister and again minimized his role. He said he had helped rough up a guy who owed someone some money, then went and sat in a car while two others continued to rough him up. They got carried away and killed him. When the minister told him he did not believe him, Keyes changed his story and said he was involved in the whole process, that they had put duct tape on the man's mouth, and he had died as a result. Months later, Keyes reiterated to the minister that the killing had been unintentional. Keyes made similar statements to an elder and a Bible study teacher at his church: he was an enforcer and during the collection of funds someone had accidentally died.

Bonilla testified in his own defense. He said he ran Sunstate Tropicals, a shell company that facilitated Tiffany's, Harris's plant business, by loaning Tiffany's money. Tiffany's had repaid only some of the money and owed Sunstate Tropicals approximately $1.2 million when Harris died. Bonilla provided $50,000 of his mother's money to acquire a stake in Harris's rebar business, but Harris instead treated the money as a loan and never repaid it.

Bonilla...

To continue reading

Request your trial
876 cases
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...as "`relevant to the question of whether remorse is present as a mitigating circumstance....'" (People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 356, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84.) Defendant concedes that this court has concluded that a prosecutor may urge the jury to consider absence of remorse......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...P.3d 309 ; People v. O'Malley , supra , 62 Cal.4th at pp. 980–981, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 365 P.3d 790 ; People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 343–345, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84 ; People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 135–137, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988 ; People v. Catlin (2001......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2017
    ...factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances]; cf. People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 334, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84 [observing that a second special circumstance "was superfluous for purposes of death eligibility and did not alter......
  • People v. Fayed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 2020
    ...in wait." ( People v. Johnson , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 630, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 364 P.3d 359 ; see People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 331, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84 [interpreting earlier version of 190.2].) The record contains ample evidence that defendant aided and abetted M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...suggest there is evidence available to the government, but not before the jury, that corroborates a witness. People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 313, 336, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209. Assurances of the honesty or reliability of a witness are not improper if based on the evidence and inferences re......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...2:190, 9:120, 12:100, 17:10, 17:60, 17:110 Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 140, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289, §17:70 Bonilla, People v. (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 313, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209, §2:190 Bonillas, People v. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 757, 257 Cal. Rptr. 895, §22:230 Bonin, People v. (1989) 47 Cal. 3d 808,......
  • Jury selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...of discrimination is weakened, since their exclusion may be the simple consequence of the laws of probability. People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 313, 344, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209. In the usual case, it is very difficult to make a prima facie case after the excusal of only one or two members......
  • Trial defense of dui in California
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...court to retain a juror who acknowledged briefly “nodding off” but said he didn’t think he missed anything. People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313. A juror reportedly having consumed alcohol during lunch was deemed insufficient to set aside a verdict, absent some showing or some reasonable......
  • 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