People v. D'Arcy

Decision Date11 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. S060500.,S060500.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN DANIEL D'ARCY, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Jerry D. Whatley, 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, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood and Gary W. Brozio, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MORENO, J.

A jury found defendant Jonathan Daniel D'Arcy guilty of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187)1 of Karen Laborde and found true special circumstance allegations that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)) and was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of mayhem in violation of section 203 (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(x), now subd. (a)(17)(J)).

The jury deadlocked at the penalty phase, and the trial court declared a mistrial. After retrial of the penalty phase, a different jury returned a verdict of death. The court denied defendant's motion for new trial (§ 1181) and automatic application to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) and sentenced him to death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Prosecution Guilt Phase Case
1. Background

In 1992, Quintessence, a company located in Tustin, obtained contracts for providing janitorial services to various businesses and then sold the contracts to janitors who serviced the contracts as independent contractors. Quintessence collected payment from the businesses and then paid its independent contractors after withholding a management fee. The bookkeeper for Quintessence was victim Karen Laborde.

Defendant purchased several accounts from Quintessence, some of which he financed through the company under terms providing that Quintessence would withhold a portion of future payments made by defendant's customers. He performed janitorial services for his accounts with Jeremy Willis (Jeremy).2 By about January 1993, defendant had lost all but two of his accounts due to customer dissatisfaction. Still, he owed Quintessence for the purchase fees he had financed for the lost accounts. Matt Conrod, a sales representative with Quintessence, arranged for Quintessence to forgive defendant's debt and maintain his contracts on the two accounts because they were difficult to reassign.

About two weeks before the murder, and after having lost some accounts, defendant had a conversation with Conrod on a second-story balcony at Quintessence. Visibly angry and using "all kinds of foul language," he told Conrod he was "pissed off" at the accounting department. Conrod thought defendant might throw him off the balcony. Defendant warned that "if anything like this happens again, something's going to happen." As he left, he again threatened, "If you don't correct this you better believe me because I'll do something, I'm not kidding."

2. The murder of Karen Laborde and defendant's arrest

On February 1, 1993, the day before the murder, defendant, upset and angry, telephoned Conrod at Quintessence to complain he had not been paid for one account. Conrod checked with Laborde on the status of defendant's payment; she told him the check had been taken care of. Conrod then telephoned defendant and told him what Laborde had said. Defendant seemed satisfied with the response. Later that day, defendant telephoned Quintessence and spoke with Eileen Anderson, Laborde's assistant. He was angry and demanded his paycheck. Defendant mistook Anderson for Laborde and threatened to hurt her if he was not paid. Anderson told him, "I'm not Kari [Laborde]. I'm not Kari." She placed defendant on hold, and after speaking with Laborde, informed him that there was no check. Defendant became angry and asked to speak with Conrod.

Sometime during the same day, defendant spoke with Jeremy about financial problems he faced. He was upset Quintessence had failed to pay him, and told Jeremy that "nobody screws [him]."

On the day of the crime, after defendant and Jeremy had finished the job at defendant's first account, located in Anaheim, defendant told Jeremy, "I quit." With Jeremy in the passenger seat, defendant then drove to Santa Ana, the location of his second account. Defendant, a smoker, had a disposable lighter in his possession that morning.

As they waited for about 10 minutes to be let inside the business, defendant told Jeremy, "No one screws me like that," and said he wanted to get even. Defendant initially said, "I'm not going to kill her. I just want to do it," meaning burn her. Later, he said, "I'm going to kill her." Without servicing the account, defendant left and drove to a gasoline station. At 8:26 a.m., he purchased a dollar's worth of gasoline, filling it into a plastic sport bottle. Jeremy asked, "What's that for?" Defendant did not reply and drove to Quintessence. During the drive, Jeremy asked him, "Are you sure you want to do this?" Defendant replied he was "positive." As defendant drove, he appeared calm and relaxed. By the time defendant and Jeremy arrived at Quintessence, defendant had told Jeremy four times that he was going to light her on fire.

When defendant arrived at Quintessence, he gave Jeremy the keys to his truck and told him to "get the hell out of [there]." After entering the building, defendant walked up stairs to the reception area, approached Lisa Chaput, the receptionist, and asked to see Laborde. When Chaput told him she was busy, defendant became angry, saying, "I want to see her and I want to see her now." Chaput walked to Laborde's office and held the door open a few inches. In the next moment, defendant burst through the door, shoving Chaput out of his way. He headed for Laborde, who was sitting behind her desk, and yanked her seat around so that she was facing him. Defendant splashed Laborde's face, arms, and dress with gasoline from the sport bottle and yelled, "This is what you get when you hold my fucking money." Laborde stood up and, wiping her face, asked, "Oh God. Why are you doing this to me?" Defendant stepped closer to Laborde and answered, "This is what you get when you don't give me my money." He then took the sport bottle, poured the remaining gasoline on Laborde's head, and lit her on fire. When Laborde began screaming and struggled to put out the flames that engulfed her, defendant shoved her.

Chaput ran downstairs to warn the building occupants about the fire and encountered defendant as he exited the building. He asked her, "Do you want to fuck with me next?" Defendant asked another woman to light the cigarette in his hand. She refused.

Two brothers, who were detailing a car nearby, and another man learned of the fire. They rushed upstairs and put out the fire with two extinguishers. They discovered Laborde burned on the floor and tried to move her, but could not do so. Tustin Police arrived around 8:39 a.m. and found Laborde on the floor of the office, charred and crying. Most of her clothing had been burned off, and her face and hair were charred. Her mouth and nose were excreting fluids, and skin was hanging from her face.

Chaput saw defendant walk toward a streetlight near the office parking lot, knock on a car, and reach in to light a cigarette. Defendant returned to the curb outside the office building and sat smoking a cigarette until he was arrested minutes later. In a calm voice, he told the arresting officer, "I'm the one you are here to arrest." Defendant was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a police car. He asked Officer Nasario Solis, an investigator who observed defendant in the police car, how much time he was looking at for attempted murder. When the officer told defendant that he was under arrest for assault, defendant responded, "I don't want assault, I want attempted murder." The officer noticed defendant smelled of gasoline, his hair was singed, and there was soot in his nose.

3. The victim's dying declaration and death

Around 9:00 a.m., Laborde was flown to the University of California at Irvine Medical Center. She had suffered third-degree burns on approximately 90 percent of her body. The heat and fumes from the flames had caused severe swelling inside her mouth and the lining of her airways. Laborde's doctor, Daniel Ng, M.D., told her that her injuries were nearly 100 percent likely to be fatal. Laborde declined medical treatment and indicated she wanted only comfort measures including pain medication. She required administration of over 30 milligrams of morphine per hour for over one or two hours to reduce the intensity of her pain and make her comfortable.3 Laborde died at 4:45 p.m. that day. Laborde's doctor opined that if she had survived, she would have been disfigured and might have lost limbs.

While Laborde was in the hospital, Officer Douglas Finney of the Tustin Police Department asked her how she was injured and recorded her answers.4 She said that "[Jon D'Arcy] threw this cup of ... fluid ... I guess it was gas ... he threw it all over me and then he lit me" with a "[c]igarette lighter" that he held "in his hand." Laborde stated that defendant "deliberately went for me." She said that she was unable to escape because she had no room to move. She had a check for defendant on a desk and would have given it to him had he asked for it. The parties stipulated that, before Laborde was taken from the scene by paramedics, a check made out to defendant for the sum of $159, and dated January 31, 1993, was located on a desk in her office.

4. The fire investigation

Captain Dennis Shearn, a 10-year veteran with the Orange County Fire Department (OCFD) Investigative Section,5 investigated the scene immediately after the crime and concluded that an open flame had ignited the fire. Remnants of a plastic bottle that smelled of gasoline were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
331 cases
  • People v. Denard
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 3 Diciembre 2015
    ...no objection was made on constitutional grounds in the trial court or in appellant's opening brief. (People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 289–290, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 226 P.3d 949 [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under excep......
  • People v. Fedalizo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Marzo 2016
    ...the defendant expressly and unambiguously renews his request that standby counsel be silenced"]; accord, People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 285, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 226 P.3d 949["a waiver or abandonment of the Faretta right to self-representation may be inferred from a defendant's con......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 31 Mayo 2018
    ...never argued to the jury that any of the felonies were merely incidental to achieving the murder. (See People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 297, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 226 P.3d 949.) The point was a nonissue at trial. Accordingly, we find no error. Additionally, the jury’s actual verdict s......
  • People v. Novoa
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Abril 2019
    ...We cannot reverse the order merely because the evidence could be reconciled with a contrary finding. ( People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 293, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 226 P.3d 949.)Below, the trial court found that Novoa did not plead guilty with a meaningful understanding and a knowing a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hospital (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 399, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340, §4:60 D’Arcy, People v. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 257, 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459, §13:30 Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 106 S. Ct. 2464, 91 L. Ed. 2d 144, §5:90 Darley v. Ward (1980) 28......
  • Photographs, recordings and x-rays
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...the court’s discretion to exclude photographs depicting the circumstances of the crime is more circumscribed. People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 257, 298, 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459. PHOTOGRAPHS, RECORDINGS & X-RAYS 13-5 Photographs, Recordings and X-Rays §13:30 Photographs or any evidence may ......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...2, §11.1.1(1)(l) People v. Daniels, 16 Cal. App. 3d 36, 93 Cal. Rptr. 628 (4th Dist. 1971)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(2)(b)[1][c] People v. DArcy, 48 Cal. 4th 257, 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459, 226 P.3d 949 (2010)—Ch. 3-B, §19.3; Ch. 5-E, §3.1.2; §3.2.5(1); §6.1; Ch. 6, §3.9.1(1) People v. Darling, 210 Cal. ......
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...objections, particularly in death-penalty cases. See People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 809; see, e.g., People v. DArcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 289-90 (although D forfeited Confrontation Clause violation claim by failing to object at trial, court decided merits of issue in affirming ......
  • 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