People v. Castaneda

Decision Date17 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. S085348.,S085348.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Gabriel CASTANEDA, Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE John L. Staley, Pleasanton, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Holly Wilkens and Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.CANTIL–SAKAUYE, C.J.

[51 Cal.4th 1301 , 254 P.3d 260]

A jury convicted Gabriel Castaneda of the first degree murder of Colleen Mary Kennedy (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), one count of second degree commercial burglary (Pen.Code, §§ 459, 460), one count of kidnapping (Pen.Code, § 207, subd. (a)), one count of sodomy by use of force (Pen.Code, § 286, subd. (c)(2)), and one count of second degree robbery ( Pen.Code, § 211).1 The jury found true the allegations that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of the crimes of burglary, kidnapping, sodomy, and robbery. ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (B), (D), (G).) The jury also found true the allegations that defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of each of the five crimes (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.3, subd. (a)), and intentionally confined the victim in a manner that exposed her to a substantial likelihood of death during the commission of kidnapping (§ 209, subd. (a)). Finally, the jury further found that during the commission or attempted commission of sodomy, defendant kidnapped the victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(1)), engaged in the tying and binding of the victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5)), personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 667.61, subd. (d)(6)), and committed the offense of burglary of a commercial establishment that was then closed to the public (former § 667.61, subd. (e)(2), Stats.1997, ch. 817, § 6, pp. 5575–5577). The trial court found true the allegations that defendant suffered two prior convictions for serious felonies (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12). The court also found that defendant suffered a felony conviction in 1987, and did not remain free of prison custody and did commit additional offenses resulting in felony convictions during the five-year period subsequent to the conclusion of his prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)

Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied defendant's application to modify the death penalty verdict to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and sentenced defendant to death. The court also sentenced defendant to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole and to 123 years to life in prison with respect to the other charges of which he was convicted. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We reverse the judgment of conviction for kidnapping, vacate the findings related to kidnapping, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt phase evidence
1. Prosecution case

The victim, Colleen Mary Kennedy, was employed by P. Basil Vassantachart, M.D., at his medical clinic in Montclair, San Bernardino County, where she performed clerical tasks and provided some medical services, such as taking X-rays and assisting with physical therapy. On Mondays, she worked alone at the clinic from approximately 9:00 a.m. until the doctor arrived at approximately 11:00 a.m. Her routine on Mondays was to finish her clerical tasks and then to sit in her office and read a newspaper or book until patients arrived at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. She kept the clinic door locked while she was alone, but from her office inside the clinic, she could see the front door to the clinic, and she admitted patients when they arrived.

In February 1998, following a minor automobile accident, defendant, his brother George Castaneda and George's wife Gina Ybarba received physical therapy at the clinic. Their first two appointments were on February 26 and March 5, when Dr. Vassantachart, the victim, and a second “nurse” were present at the clinic in the morning. After one of these appointments, defendant told Ybarba that when the second nurse bent over to tie her shoe, she put her “behind” in his face, and Ybarba responded that the nurse “better not do that to George.” Their third appointment was on Monday, March 9, at 9:30 a.m., when the victim apparently was alone in the office. At some point in mid-or late March, Dr. Vassantachart or the victim informed Ybarba that there was no insurance coverage for their treatment, but the clinic would continue treatment if they would be financially responsible. Ybarba conveyed this information to defendant. Thereafter, the three received no further treatment at the clinic.

On Monday, March 30, 1998, the day of the crimes, Dr. Vassantachart's office manager, Shirley Vassantachart, spoke to the victim by telephone at 9:28 a.m., and perceived nothing unusual in their interactions. She placed another telephone call to the victim between 10:15 and 10:30 a.m., but the victim did not answer. Patients began arriving at 10:30 a.m., but the victim did not open the clinic door or answer the telephone. Thereafter, Dr. Vassantachart unlocked the clinic. When he entered the victim's office, he noticed an open book on the floor, which he characterized as “very unusual.” 2 He proceeded 40 to 50 feet further into the clinic, and found the victim's dead body lying facedown across a “procedure table.” Photographs of the crime scene, which Dr. Vassantachart confirmed were accurate, show that the victim was naked from the waist down, except where her pants caught on one of her ankles. Her hands were bound behind her back, and her legs were splayed, with one leg hanging down from each side of the table. Her body was askew, so that her head also hung over one side of the table, and her genital area was near a corner of the table. An examination of the exterior of the building after the crimes were committed revealed no evidence of a forced entry.

Dr. Frank Sheridan, the Chief Medical Examiner for the County of San Bernardino, described the victim's condition. Her hands were tied tightly behind her back with shoelaces, which left deep ligature marks on her wrists. A gag, comprised of a sock and a shoelace, was in her mouth and wrapped tightly around her neck. She had abrasions on her forehead, on either side of her chin, and on her neck, which might have resulted from a struggle against someone holding her face and attempting to put the gag on her. There were four areas of hemorrhaging inside the scalp, which were caused by blows with a blunt object.

Sheridan concluded that the cause of death was blood loss from multiple stab wounds to the victim's neck. There were 29 wounds inflicted with a Phillips screwdriver on the back and sides of her neck. The wounds at the back of the neck, over the spine, were more shallow, where the bone would have stopped the weapon; they were deeper on the sides of the neck. Some of the superficial wounds appeared to have been caused by “jabbing” or “prodding” of the victim, and with respect to these “scraping” or “glancing” wounds, Sheridan agreed it was possible the screwdriver was being used “as an implement to intimidate.” At least 15 of the wounds were “fairly deep,” and Sheridan opined that “it would take a significant amount of pressure to enter the skin ... with a screwdriver.” Collectively, the wounds caused much hemorrhaging into the tissues of the neck, but two wounds on the left side were the most lethal, because they opened the carotid artery and the jugular vein. Sheridan stated it was difficult to determine how long the victim remained alive after these two vessels were severed, because blood continued to flow to and from her brain on the right side of her neck, but he stated that “it would take a matter of several minutes,” and that she might have survived as long as 15 minutes. He concluded that all of these wounds were inflicted while the victim was alive, but he could not determine the order in which they were inflicted. The wounds' close proximity suggested they occurred within a short period of time, but they might have occurred over a period of 15 minutes, with some “inflicted at an earlier stage and the rest fairly quickly after.” The gag was in place around the victim's neck when most or all of the wounds were inflicted, as evidenced by holes in the sock. The gag, which became soaked with blood, partially obstructed the victim's breathing, and thereby contributed to her death.

Dr. Sheridan also testified that it appeared from his external examination that there might be some bruising in the area of the vaginal entrance, but he was not able to confirm through microscopic examination of a sample of the underlying tissue that there was bruising. He noted a small amount of dried feces around the anal area, but observed no apparent trauma to the anal region. In addition, his internal examination of the rectum and anal area revealed nothing that indicated trauma. He further explained that whether there were visible injuries from a sexual assault would depend upon how much struggling occurred and whether the injuries were inflicted when the victim was dead or near death, at which time muscles would relax and there would be little circulation to enable bruising.

No spermatozoa was found on the vaginal, rectal, and oral smears taken from the victim, but tests revealed seminal fluid on two areas of carpet and on a feces-stained sock that was found on the floor beneath the procedure table. In addition, a palm print was found on the upward-facing sheet of paper that covered the table on which the victim's body...

To continue reading

Request your trial
347 cases
  • Jernigan v. Edward
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • November 7, 2017
  • People v. Franklin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2018
  • People v. Powell
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 13, 2018
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2018
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...1, §5.4.1 People v. Castain, 122 Cal. App. 3d 138, 175 Cal. Rptr. 651 (4th Dist. 1981)—Ch. 4-A, §3.3.1(2)(b) People v. Castaneda, 51 Cal. 4th 1292, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200, 254 P.3d 249 (2011)—Ch. 6, §2.2.2(4) People v. Castaneda, 35 Cal. App. 4th 1222, 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18 (4th Dist. 1995)—Ch......
  • Demonstrative evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...the relative positions of the two vehicles immediately after the accident. Court: Objection overruled. CASES People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1292, 1340, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200. Court did not err in excluding an expert’s use of a chart comparing DSM-IV’s symptoms of “major depression” ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Rptr. 2d 10, §1:240 Castaneda v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal. App. 4th 1434, 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 889, §20:80 Castaneda, People v. (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1292, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200, §16:90 Castillo, People v. (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 145, 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346, §18:40 Castillo, People v. (2008) 168 C......
  • Chapter 6 - §2. Balancing test
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 6 Discretionary Exclusion Under Evid. C. §352
    • Invalid date
    ...would create the impression of scientific credibility but no factual substantiation has been established. See People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1340 & n.22. 3. Due process. (1) Generally. The balancing test under Evid. C. §352 must yield to a defendant's due-process right to a fai......

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