People v. Carrera

Decision Date17 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. S004569,S004569
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 777 P.2d 121 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Constantino CARRERA, Defendant and Appellant.
[777 P.2d 124] Stephen B. Bedrick, Oakland and Doris Brin Walker, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst., Jane N. Kirkland and Edmund D. McMurray, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent.

ARGUELLES, * Associate Justice, Assigned.

Defendant Constantino Carrera was charged with the first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187) 1 and robbery ( § 211) of Carol and Jack Hayes. Special circumstances of felony murder-robbery ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and multiple murder ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) were alleged. Defendant was convicted on the two counts of first degree murder and on the robbery count, and both special circumstances were found to be true. The jury fixed the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic. ( § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm.

FACTS

On the morning of April 8, 1982, the bodies of Jack and Carol Hayes, the managers of the Imperial 400 Motel in Mojave, California, were discovered on the floor of their living quarters adjoining the motel office. They had been stabbed to death. Carol Hayes was fully dressed and had been stabbed 20 to 30 times. Jack Hayes was clad only in a T-shirt and undershorts; his body had 14 or 15 large stab wounds, including one to the head where a knife had broken off at the surface of the skull leaving a 3-inch portion embedded inside. Circumstantial evidence--including the testimony of one motel guest who had spoken to Jack Hayes between 9 and 9:30 p.m. the prior evening and testimony that Carol Hayes generally handled the motel office duties before but not after 10 p.m., while Jack took a nap--indicated that the couple was killed on April 7 sometime between 9 and 10 p.m. Judging from the motel records, approximately $238 was missing from the office receipts.

The attention of police investigators was soon drawn to defendant and Ramiro Ruiz Gonzales (Ruiz), who were arrested without a warrant on April 12, 1982, the police fearing the two might flee after they saw their mutual friend and intimate, Teresa F. (Teresa), in the company of a detective. A complaint charging defendant with the murder and robbery of Jack and Carol Hayes, and with felony murder-robbery and multiple-murder special circumstances, was filed in municipal court two days later. That afternoon, certain of defendant's family members and friends were allowed to visit him at the county jail. His conversations with these visitors, in which he made several arguably incriminating statements, were secretly monitored and recorded. Defendant was arraigned the following morning. 2

At defendant's trial, the prosecution endeavored to show that the robbery and murders were committed by defendant and Ruiz, painting defendant as the main actor or, alternatively, as at least an accomplice under theories of intentional murder and felony murder-robbery. The defense attempted to place responsibility for the crimes on Ruiz and Teresa, characterizing defendant as at most an accessory after the fact who had assisted the destruction of evidence to help his friends escape detection. 3

Guilt Phase Evidence

The pivotal evidence at trial fell largely into five discrete categories: (1) testimony from defendant and others regarding who was present at or absent from a gathering between the critical hours of 9 and 10 p.m. on April 7, 1982; (2) testimony from Mike Santana (Santana) and Teresa, who, charged as accessories after the fact, testified under grants of immunity from prosecution regarding statements made by defendant; (3) testimony of two inmate witnesses, who had been incarcerated with defendant at the county jail, regarding his statements to them about the murders; (4) physical evidence, including bloody shoe prints at the motel and items of clothing that defendant and Ruiz had attempted to burn, tending to link defendant to the murders; and (5) defendant's jailhouse conversations with his visitors and letters to friends.

Events of April 7, 1982. By all accounts, defendant (20 years old at the time) spent the early afternoon of April 7 with Ruiz (age 17) and Santana (age 19), and possibly with his younger brother Efrain Carrera as well, drinking beer and smoking marijuana. Santana, Ruiz and defendant each took a small amount of LSD (acid) as well. Early that evening, they joined a group of friends at the house of Santana's older sister, Carmen Santana Valadez. Among the others present during the evening, in addition to Carmen, were Teresa (age 14), Tina and Sherry H. (12 and 14 years old, respectively), and Maria Carrera Nunez, defendant's older sister. Patience S. (age 15) was a latecomer, arriving shortly before defendant and Ruiz left the gathering with a few of the others.

With the exception of Ruiz, all of these testified to defendant's movements. Sherry H. saw defendant and Ruiz leave the party around 9 p.m. and return around 10. Her younger sister Tina testified similarly that defendant and Ruiz left the party around 8:30 or 9 and returned about 9 or 10. Patience S. testified that she and her boyfriend, on their way to Carmen's house, drove past defendant and Ruiz walking toward the house at 10 to 10:30. Teresa saw defendant and Ruiz leave the party between 9 and 10. She did not see their return, as she was inside the house at the time. Santana testified that defendant and Ruiz left the party at 9 or 9:30 and returned a half-hour later. Defendant's brother Efrain offered the first variation from this scenario, testifying that Ruiz left the party alone about 8:30 and that defendant left with Tina H. about 15 minutes later. Defendant and Tina allegedly returned to Carmen's house later that evening, and Ruiz came back later yet, still alone, about 10:30 or 11. Defendant's sister Maria and Santana's sister Carmen did not see anyone come or go that evening.

Defendant's story varied subtly from that of the other witnesses, not so much in the various events as in when those events took place. According to him, Teresa, and Tina and Sherry H., did not even arrive at Carmen's house until 9 p.m.--well after the arrival time each of them had estimated. He and Tina went to his sister Maria's house about 9:30 to "mess[ ] around a little while"--an episode not mentioned by Tina herself or any other witnesses, except for defendant's sister, who placed the event earlier in the afternoon, and his brother Efrain. Ruiz and Teresa allegedly left Carmen's The bulk of this testimony placed defendant and Ruiz away from the gathering during the time that Jack and Carol Hayes were probably killed. The evidence similarly tended to place Teresa and Santana at the party throughout that period.

house about 10 to go out to Ruiz's car and came back in the house 30 to 45 minutes later, at which time Teresa was crying hysterically. According to Santana, Teresa had remained in the house during this period, and Teresa testified that she had gone with Ruiz to his car much earlier in the evening. Defendant admitted leaving the house with Ruiz that evening, but testified that he did so only to help find a battery for Ruiz's car and only after Ruiz and Teresa had returned from their own absence, and that he and Ruiz met Patience S. and her boyfriend while on the way back from this errand.

Immunized Witness Testimony. Teresa and Santana testified, as did defendant, and Tina and Sherry H., that the six of them left Carmen's house in Ruiz's car after getting a jump start from Patience S.'s boyfriend. Teresa and Santana both also testified that Ruiz stopped the car in a deserted area a little while later, that defendant, Ruiz and Santana got out, and that defendant and Ruiz changed their clothes. The two also said that, after dropping off Tina and Sherry H. at their home, Ruiz stopped the car at a liquor store.

Teresa testified that Santana and Ruiz went into the store, while she and defendant remained outside in the car. At this time, defendant told her what had happened that evening. Defendant first told her that he had "messed up his whole life" and that he "had stabbed someone." Defendant said he and Ruiz had gone to the Imperial 400 Motel to get some money that was owed Ruiz, who had formerly worked there. Ruiz stabbed the woman at the motel many times; defendant said that he cut her on the arm when he saw her reaching for something. Defendant also told her that the man came out "and they hit him with scissors in the head." Santana and Ruiz then came back to the car from the store, and the four drove to a motel. When Santana and Ruiz again left the car to rent rooms, defendant told Teresa that "a knife broke off in the lady's neck, in the throat." Two rooms were rented at this motel. Defendant and Santana spent the night in one of the rooms; Ruiz and Teresa shared the other.

Santana's testimony differed somewhat from Teresa's. According to Santana, defendant and Ruiz went into the liquor store while he remained in the car with Teresa. He agreed, however, that he and Ruiz rented the motel rooms while defendant and Teresa remained in the car. Santana testified that defendant told him about the events at the Imperial 400 Motel while they were in the room they shared. Defendant told Santana that he and Ruiz went to the motel to rob it and that Ruiz stabbed the lady a couple of times. Defendant said he cut her once on the wrist when she reached for the telephone and then froze while Ruiz continued to stab her. Ruiz then walked into a room where the man was sleeping and stabbed him. The man got up and hit Ruiz, but Ruiz continued to stab him until he fell down. Defendant also told Santana that while Ruiz was stabbing the people, "the knife broke and he went inside the kitchen and got a bigger knife." Santana further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
245 cases
  • Dixon v. Rackley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 14 de abril de 2017
    ...153, 226-227; People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 189-190; People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 667 & fn. 13; People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 312 & fn. 10; People v. Sheldon, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 946.) That court has been less consistent as to whether, when given together with i......
  • In re Corpus
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 30 de agosto de 2012
    ...jury. (People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 597–598, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224; People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 331, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121.) The petition neither acknowledges nor attempts to refute or distinguish this binding authority.Finally, petitioner reit......
  • People v. Cuevas
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 26 de dezembro de 1995
    ... ... Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 328, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121.) ...         Nor is it inequitable to apply our decision to the facts of this case. As we observed earlier, so long as there is substantial evidence supporting his [12 Cal.4th 276] conviction, defendant has no cognizable ... ...
  • 53 Cal.3d 1179A, People v. Beardslee
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 25 de março de 1991
    ...defendant intended to encourage or facilitate the actual killer's first degree murder of the victim. (People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 310-311, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121; People v. Warren, supra, 45 Cal.3d 471, 487-488, 247 Cal.Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d Defendant contends the instruc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 de março de 2023
    ...175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 538, §§2:70, 20:20 Carreon, People v. (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 559, 198 Cal. Rptr. 843, §6:120 Carrera, People v. (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 291, 261 Cal. Rptr. 348, §4:160 Carrow, In re (1974) 40 Cal. App. 3d 924, 115 Cal. Rptr. 601, §20:50 Carr v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. (19......
  • Order of proceedings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 de março de 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 1. If a party does not object to improper rebuttal evidence, the objection is forfeited on appeal. People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 291, 323, 261 Cal. Rptr. 348; People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 379, 399, 82 Cal. Rptr. 379. Surrebuttal. The court may limit surrebuttal to p......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...1, §4.8.4 People v. Carreon, 248 Cal. App. 4th 866, 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 857 (6th Dist. 2016)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.8(1)(a)[2] People v. Carrera, 49 Cal. 3d 291, 261 Cal. Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121 (1989)—Ch. 1, §4.8.4 People v. Carrington, 47 Cal. 4th 145, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117, 211 P.3d 617 (2009)—Ch. 5......
  • Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...(2009) 47 Cal.4th 318, 376; see, e.g., People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 963 (escape from jail); People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 314 (same). But see People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 290 (evidence concerning D's brief refusal to come to court did not have "tendency in re......

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