People v. Gonzales
| Decision Date | 20 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | F073588 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Linda A. McFadden, Judge.
Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Francisco Hernandez Gonzales fatally stabbed his friend of many years after his niece told him the victim had molested her. The jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found he used a deadly or dangerous weapon to commit the crime. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).)1 The trial court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate term of 26 years to life: 25 years to life for first degree murder and an additional one year for the weapon enhancement.
On appeal, defendant claims the jury's finding that the murder was willful, deliberate and premediated is unsupported by substantial evidence. He also claims the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on mutual combat, contrived self-defense, voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense and voluntary intoxication.2
The People dispute defendant's entitlement to any relief on his claims and they contend he forfeited his claims of instructional error because he failed to object at trial.
We reject defendant's substantial evidence challenge and, without determining whether the forfeiture doctrine should apply here, we conclude that the instructional errors defendant complains of are harmless. We therefore affirm the judgment.
Defendant was living in Porterville in December 2012, but had numerous relatives in Modesto. In early December, he traveled to Modesto for a visit and stayed with various family members, including his sister, Margarita G., and her partner of 17 years and the victim in this case, Trinidad C. 3,4 Margarita and Trinidad lived in a small, two bedroom apartment with two of Margarita's grandchildren. Margarita's adult daughter, Paula G., and Paula's two children also lived there.
Defendant and Trinidad had been friends for decades. On or around New Year's Eve, defendant and Paula were at Paula's sister's house drinking and talking. Paula, who was then 25 years old, told defendant and her sister that Trinidad had molested her.5 Paula described defendant as sad, hurt and angry at the news, and defendant testified he did not initially believe the information and considered it possible Paula was lying. Defendant did not say anything to Trinidad afterward, however, and he continued to stay at Trinidad's and Margarita's apartment.
Almost two weeks later, on January 12, 2013, Margarita, Paula, and the children attended a church service. They then spent several hours at a relative's house, returning home when Trinidad called and told them dinner was ready. That night, there were six children at the apartment: the two grandchildren Margarita and Trinidad were raising, Paula's two children and two other grandchildren.
Defendant arrived at the apartment later that evening, after dark. Trinidad was sitting in his chair in the living room watching a football game. Margarita and Paula were also sitting in the living room and the six children were around playing. Defendant greeted Trinidad when he came in and engaged in some small talk regarding the game. Trinidad thereafter went into the kitchen and then down the hallway toward the master bedroom he shared with Margarita. He spent a lot of time in the bedroom reading or watching television and it was his practice to read in there at night.
After Trinidad left the room, defendant, who was sitting on the couch next to Paula, brought up her allegation that Trinidad had molested her. Paula did not want to talk about it, but confirmed she had been molested. Paula had never told Margarita that Trinidad molested her and although Margarita was in the room with them, she did not hear their conversation. Defendant then got up, went into the kitchen and proceeded down the hallway.
Margarita, Paula and one of the grandchildren, Joshua W., subsequently heard a noise that sounded like something had fallen. The noise gave Margarita a funny feeling and she hurried to investigate. Paula and Joshua heard Margarita scream and they went to the master bedroom. Trinidad, Margarita and defendant were in the room. Trinidad had been stabbed and was on the bed. Defendant left the room and walked out of the apartment. Margarita called 911.
Trinidad had four stab wounds and a superficial cut. The wounds to his abdomen, thigh and upper arm were not fatal, but the wound to his heart was and he succumbed a short time later. The next morning, defendant learned Trinidad was dead and left the area. He was located and arrested at a homeless shelter in Turlock, approximately 10 days later.
After the crime, one of the drawers in the kitchen was found ajar. Margarita testified that the drawer housed a knife from Trinidad's collection, which the family was using as a kitchen knife. The drawer was usually kept closed. Police located that knife—a hunting knife with an approximately five-inch curved blade—under the bed in the master bedroom with dried blood on the blade. Detectives also located three other knives in the bedroom, but none had blood on them. One knife was located in a box in a closed drawer, another was in a sheath on top of a shelving unit and the third, a butter knife, was on the floor.
To many of the questions regarding the details of the crime, Margarita testified she did not know or did not remember. She testified that after she heard the noise and entered the bedroom, she recalled Trinidad was sitting on the bed slouched forward. She also testified that she did not see defendant drinking that night, but when he arrived at the apartment, he always gave her a hug and she could smell alcohol. She described him as seeming "a little bit buzzed," "a little bit tipsy," and "a little woozy."
Detectives Pouv and Evers of the Modesto Police Department questioned Margarita the night of the crime and she initially denied knowing who stabbed Trinidad. After hours of questioning, Margarita admitted defendant was in the apartment that night. She then told detectives that when she went to the bedroom, Trinidad was on his side and defendant was standing next to him. Trinidad had already been stabbed. Margarita said she saw defendant and Trinidad struggling over the knife, and she grabbed defendant's hand to keep him from stabbing Trinidad. She would not specify who had the knife, though, and she said she yelled at defendant to stop and for both of them to let go. Margarita told detectives Trinidad told her that if he let go, defendant would stab him again, and she told them she saw the knife fall to the floor.
Joshua, who was 10 years old at the time of the crime and 12 years old at the time of trial, was one of the grandchildren being raised by Margarita and Trinidad. He testified that when he looked into the bedroom, he saw defendant stabbing Trinidad. He said Trinidad was lying on the bed and Margarita was trying to get defendant off Trinidad. Joshua testified he saw defendant with a knife in his hand and the knife was in Trinidad's body under his heart. Trinidad was not trying to defend himself and Joshua only saw his stomach moving. As defendant got up and left, he told Margarita he was going to stick her if she tried to stop him.
On cross-examination, Joshua said defendant and Trinidad were struggling but not over control of the knife. He also said he did not see the knife, but he saw defendant holding something in his hands that was on Trinidad's chest. Joshua denied telling detectives that Trinidad had his legs wrapped around defendant, and he did not recall defendant stating that he would leave if Trinidad let go or that he would let go if Trinidad got off.
Detective Pouv, who questioned Joshua, testified that Joshua told him Trinidad had defendant by the legs, and that defendant told Trinidad to let go and he would leave. Joshua also told Pouv that defendant was stabbing Trinidad when he entered the room and Margarita was trying to stop him.
Paula was seven or eight years old when Margarita and Trinidad became a couple, and she lived with her mother and Trinidad off and on. She testified that when she was between the ages of 12 or 13 and 15, Trinidad touched her "boobs and ... butt and stuff" several times. He told her not to say anything and not to feel bad because he was not her real father. She never told anyone about the molestations until she shared it with defendant and her sister during defendant's December 2012 visit to Modesto.
Paula had been drinking on the night of the crime and when defendant arrived at the apartment that night, he brought up the molestation again. Paula did not want to talk about it, but confirmed to defendant that Trinidad had molested her. She observed a visible change in defendant and although she did not describe it further in her testimony, she said he did not make any threats or start shouting. Defendant left the room and Paula saw him go into the kitchen.
Paula then heard a thud and her mother scream...
To continue reading
Request your trial