People v. Bowen

Citation265 Cal.Rptr.3d 824,52 Cal.App.5th 130
Decision Date15 July 2020
Docket NumberA155630
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Quentin BOWEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Certified for Partial Publication.*

Stephen Greenberg, Nevada City, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin and Ann P. Wathen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jackson, J. Defendant Quentin Bowen appeals from a judgment after a jury trial finding him guilty of one count of attempted murder committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, with a great bodily injury enhancement and a personal knife use enhancement, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, with a great bodily injury enhancement. Defendant complains of improper admission of certain evidence, prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, and insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, and that his sentence for attempted murder is unauthorized. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On July 19, 2017, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with attempted murder ( Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a) ; count one)1 and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a); count two). With respect to count one, the information alleged an enhancement of personal use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and that defendant committed the attempted murder willfully, deliberately and with premeditation. With respect to both counts, the information alleged a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). On March 27, 2018, a jury found defendant guilty as charged and the enhancements to be true. The defendant was sentenced to prison on count one as follows: seven years to life for attempted murder plus a determinate term of three years for the great bodily injury enhancement and one year for the use of a deadly and dangerous weapon enhancement. On count two the defendant was sentenced to four years plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The time imposed for count two was stayed under section 654. Defendant's overall prison sentence was seven years to life consecutive to a determinate term of four years.

I. Prosecution's Case

In July 2016, defendant placed an online advertisement looking for boarding for his dog, Dash, offering to pay $100 per week. Dennis N., a 62-year-old man, initially agreed to care for Dash for two weeks but later agreed to keep the dog longer at defendant's request. Although Dennis N. took care of Dash for five months, defendant never paid him.

On November 26, 2016, defendant told Dennis N. he had found a place to live and asked Dennis N. to return Dash to him. Dennis N. asked for a few more days with Dash, and defendant agreed. On December 3, 2016, Dennis N. texted defendant: "There is the little matter of compensation/reimbursement for the excellent care that Dash has received. I am not a mathematician but 20 weeks (5 months)@$100 per week = a lot. I'm sure you will do what's right." Dennis N. thought defendant should "man up and take care of his responsibilities." Defendant responded that Dennis N. had agreed to "do it pro bono." After looking up the meaning of "pro bono," Dennis N. texted defendant back: "Do you understand how Karma works." A few days later, defendant came to Dennis N.’s home with three other people and took Dash. The defendant still did not pay Dennis N.

Dennis N. texted defendant a few weeks later asking him what Dash wanted for Christmas. Defendant responded: "He'd like a friend for him to play with at your place." Dennis N. texted back: "He had a best friend to play with at my place until you took him away." Defendant responded: "Ok man, I've been patient with you. We're done. You will never see my Dog again.... He needs to go out and meet people EVERY single day. He needs to RUN. He also needs the person who raised him. You are none of those things. Get your own dog, or kill yourself. I don't care either way." Dennis N. thought it was "unbelievable" that defendant would treat him that way after he did him a favor. Dennis N. texted the defendant back and told him he still owed him $2,000. Defendant responded by accusing Dennis N. of taking "bad care" of Dash by overfeeding him, underexercising him, and not grooming him. Defendant further texted that Dennis N. had agreed to "do it for free," "[o]therwise, you lunatic, I would not have let you." Dennis N. responded that "taking advantage of a disabled senior citizen and swindling them is a crime." He texted that defendant had "12 hours to apologize ... and come up with a plan to make this right." Defendant stopped responding to Dennis N., and Dennis N. dropped the matter.

In March 2017, Dennis N. responded to a new online advertisement placed by defendant regarding Dash. Although Dennis N. stated he thought Dash looked sad, he did not ask to take Dash back. Then, one night in March, defendant came to Dennis N.’s mobile home and begged him to take Dash. Dennis N. agreed.

On March 30, 2017, defendant texted Dennis N. that he planned to visit Dash the following day and wanted to put a new tag on him. Defendant went to Dennis N.’s home around noon the next day and stayed for about three hours. During the visit, defendant took off his jacket. Dennis N. observed defendant was wearing a black T-shirt underneath. Defendant groomed Dash, put the new tag on him, and filled out paperwork for Dash to attend an activity center. Dennis N. noticed defendant was wearing a knife clip on his front pocket, but he did not see the knife. At first, Dennis N. did not think too much about it. Their conversation over the three hours was pleasant, and there was no discussion of the money defendant owed Dennis N.

At one point, Dennis N. reached into his mobile home to get wisteria clippings he wanted defendant to smell. When Dennis N. saw the wisteria was not where he thought, he backed out of the mobile home. Suddenly, Dennis N. was hit hard on the back of his head. He initially thought something had fallen from the roof. As he turned around, defendant stabbed him in the neck two or three times. Dennis N. grabbed defendant's left wrist; defendant was holding the knife in his left hand. Defendant then clubbed Dennis N. on the side of his jaw with a rock. Defendant dropped the rock and switched the knife to his right hand and started stabbing Dennis N. in the neck again. When Dennis N. grabbed defendant's stabbing hand, defendant again switched the knife to his opposite hand. Defendant stabbed Dennis N. twice in the chest and once in the shoulder. Dennis N. asked defendant why he was doing this. Defendant did not respond.

Dennis N. eventually placed defendant into a half nelson while gripping the wrist of the hand defendant was using to hold the knife. They tumbled inside the doorway of Dennis N.’s mobile home. Dennis N. had a glimpse of the knife that the defendant used and described it as a three-inch pocket knife that was either silver or possibly red and with holes on the handle.

Dennis N. continued to hold defendant in the half nelson position for several minutes while bleeding from his neck. He told defendant to drop the knife, but defendant refused. He said he was bleeding out and needed medical attention. Defendant said he would help if Dennis N. would let him go. Dennis N. worried defendant would "finish the job" because defendant refused to drop the knife. Ultimately, Dennis N. pushed defendant further into the mobile home and ran down his driveway toward a nearby preschool, yelling for help. Dash followed Dennis N. Although Dennis N. was afraid defendant would pursue him and slit his throat, he looked back and saw defendant walking away with defendant's bicycle.

Sarah R. and Lisa C. were outside their children's preschool when they saw Dennis N., who asked them to call 911. They saw another man walking away with a bicycle through the field toward the trees. Dennis N. held pressure on his neck and returned to his mobile home to wait for the police and paramedics. Officer Adams responded to the scene, and Dennis N. provided the police with the defendant's cell phone number. Dennis N. was taken to the hospital, where he was treated for eight stab wounds

. Justin F., a Sonoma County animal control officer, was called to the scene to impound Dash.

Officer Adams had police dispatch contact defendant's mobile phone service provider to determine the defendant's possible location. Shortly before 6:00 p.m., police dispatch provided Officer Adams with a possible location of the defendant in the area of the Santa Rosa Creek Trail. Officers searched the area, and at 7:18 p.m., they found defendant walking on the trail wearing a backpack, a jacket, and no shirt. Defendant was arrested; his cell phone, backpack, and several knives were seized. Defendant had blood on his right ear, and DNA tests confirmed the blood was consistent with both defendant's and Dennis N.’s.

II. Defense Case

Defendant testified that he visited Dennis N. on March 31, 2017, to see Dash and put a tag on him, and he gave Dennis N. money for Dash's food. Dennis N. began acting in a menacing manner after a few hours, and defendant texted his friend Krysta: "Hey, I am at sketchy guys house behind raleys on Fulton. The trailor RIGHT behind the store. [¶] *If I disappear, it was this guy. [¶] His name is Dennis." (Sic. ) When Dennis N. began to act normally again, defendant agreed to follow him into his mobile home. As they walked into the hallway, Dennis N. suddenly turned around and tried to stab defendant with a large knife. Defendant fell backward onto a pile of items, and Dennis N. again tried to stab him. Defendant grabbed Dennis N.’s hand and maneuvered the knife out of his hand. Dennis N. held defendant down with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Arias
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 2020
  • People v. Wallravin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 2022
    ...serious physical injury to any person requires access to the electronic device information." (§ 1546.1, subd. (c)(6).) In People v. Bowen (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 130, 137, court held that an emergency justified pinging a cell phone, without prior judicial authorization, of a suspect who had "......
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...belief that the action taken was appropriate. Ovieda 7 Cal.5th at 1043; Nunes, 64 Cal.App.5th at 6; People v. Bowen (1st Dist.2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 130, 138-39. Thus, in evaluating the issue, the court must examine the "totality of circumstances" confronting an officer as he decides to make ......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...5-A, §3.3.1(6) People v. Bouzas, 53 Cal. 3d 467, 279 Cal. Rptr. 847, 807 P.2d 1076 (1991)—Ch. 1, §2.1.2(3)(b)[2] People v. Bowen, 52 Cal. App. 5th 130, 265 Cal. Rptr. 3d 824 (1st Dist. 2020)—Ch. 5-A, §3.1.2(1) People v. Bower, 24 Cal. 3d 638, 156 Cal. Rptr. 856, 597 P.2d 115 (1979)—Ch. 5-A,......

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