People v. Gonzales
| Decision Date | 10 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. S072316.,S072316. |
| Citation | People v. Gonzales, 51 Cal.4th 894, 253 P.3d 185, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (Cal. 2011) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Veronica Utilia GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Mark E. Cutler, Sacramento, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala G. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.CORRIGAN, J.
[51 Cal.4th 899 , 253 P.3d 194]
Defendant Veronica Utilia Gonzales was convicted of murdering Genny Rojas.1 The jury found as special circumstances that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture,2 and occurred while defendant was engaged in the commission and attempted commission of mayhem. 3 It returned a verdict of death. On this automatic appeal, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Defendant was the aunt of Genny Rojas. Genny and her siblings were removed from the custody of defendant's sister Mary Rojas, after Mary went into a drug rehabilitation program and her husband was arrested for child molestation. Genny was first placed with defendant's mother, but defendant agreed to take Genny in because her mother had other children to care for. Early in 1995, when she was four years old, Genny came to live with defendant, her husband Ivan, and their six children in an apartment in Chula Vista.
On the evening of July 21, 1995, Marisa Lozano, a young neighbor in the apartment building, was standing outside when she heard a child crying in defendant's apartment. Shortly thereafter, she heard a bang, “like if something hit a wall.” The crying stopped. Ivan Gonzales looked out a window, then shut it and closed the curtains. A few minutes later Ivan came out of the apartment, slammed the door, and left, looking angry. Marisa's Aunt Noemi then called for her to come inside, as she was supposed to each night at 8:00. Ivan appeared at a local liquor store around 8:45 p.m., where he bought milk, cereal, and candy. No more than an hour later Marisa heard a commotion, and someone said that a little girl had died. Going outside, Marisa saw Ivan carrying a child into the apartment where Marisa's Aunt Patti lived. Marisa heard defendant say, “don't call the cops.”
Noemi Espinoza testified that sometime after 9:00 that evening there was some noise and she heard someone call to her. She came out of her apartment and saw Ivan carrying a little girl. Noemi asked him what had happened. Ivan told her the child had burned herself with hot water, and that she did not know how to regulate the water. Defendant was standing next to Ivan. Noemi asked him to bring the child into her sister Patti's apartment, which was across from the Gonzaleses'. Ivan did so, followed by defendant. He placed the child on the floor as Noemi told him to do. She had been trained as a nurse's assistant, and proceeded to check for a pulse and breathing. There were none, and the body was dry, very cold, and slightly rigid. Nevertheless, Noemi tried to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and told her husband to call 911. Defendant “said not to call the police because they will get blamed for it.” Noemi was unable to revive the child, and believed she had been dead for a while. Noemi noticed a bald spot on the child's head, marks on her neck and right arm, and a purplish color on her leg.
While Noemi was attempting CPR, defendant was running in and out of the apartment, looking very nervous. Ivan sat on the couch but left after a couple of minutes. Noemi remembered that earlier in the evening, between 6:00 and 7:00, the Gonzaleses' son Ivan, Jr. had come to Patti's apartment and asked for some rubbing alcohol. Noemi noticed that “he had a very weird, blank stare.”
Around 9:20 p.m., officers William Moe and Barry Bennett of the Chula Vista police arrived at the scene. Moe met defendant as he approached the apartment. Defendant told him she had put the baby in the bathtub, and later found her not breathing. Moe checked the child for a pulse and respiration, but did not attempt CPR because both he and Bennett concluded she was “obviously dead.” The body was “very cold to the touch.” Bennett noted that the child was wearing only a shirt, which was dry, as was her hair. She had bare patches and open wounds on her scalp, signs of trauma on her face, and a ligature mark under her throat. She was “a little rigid,” leading Bennett to think that rigor mortis might be setting in. As he knelt next to the body, defendant said she had run the bath water, put the child in the bath, and then gone to cook dinner. About 20 minutes later, she returned and the child had slipped under the water, so she grabbed her and went to another apartment to call 911. As defendant spoke, Ivan was sitting there “ like an observer.” Moe and Bennett then went to the Gonzales apartment, where they found the other children. The bathtub was empty and dry.
Ten or fifteen minutes after the police arrived, the fire department came to the apartment. The fireman who assessed the victim found her cold and without a pulse. When he tilted her head and grasped her chin to try to open an airway, he found that her jaw was locked and her teeth tightly clenched, an “obvious sign” of rigor mortis. He did not try CPR, deciding it was too late.
A medical examiner arrived around 1:00 a.m. He noted a thermal burn from the waist to the toes and numerous other injuries on the body, especially the face. An autopsy was performed later that morning. A burn injury extended irregularly from the top of Genny's head down and across the back of her scalp. This burn was in the process of healing, but was infected. The medical examiner estimated that it was from six days to several weeks old. There was hair loss in the burn area, and thinning and bald patches elsewhere on the scalp. These could have been caused by the hair being pulled out or by nutritional deficiencies. There were scars on Genny's shoulders that were consistent with burn injuries. They matched the burned area on the back of her head, if the neck was bent back. An area of hair was spared between the burn on the head and the shoulders, which was also consistent with the head being tilted back at the time of the burn. The injury could have been caused by a hot liquid being poured over Genny's head.
The examiner discovered a subdural hematoma inside the skull. This was a life-threatening injury for a four-year-old like Genny. It could have been caused by a blow or by violent shaking, and appeared to be a few hours old. The examiner also noted a subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is typically the result of a direct impact to the head. This was not a life-threatening injury, and was weeks or perhaps months old. There was a pinpoint hemorrhage, or petechiae, in the white of Genny's right eye. This injury, which can be caused by strangulation, normally disappears after a few days if the victim survives. The area around the right eye was bruised. The examiner estimated that this injury was a few days old. The left eye was also bruised. There were abrasions above both eyes in the eyebrow area. Linear abrasions extended across Genny's face from her left ear, and the skin was worn away on the bridge of her nose. The skin on the rim of both ears was also worn off, exposing the cartilage. These abrasions could have been caused by a tight band around her head.
There were bruises on Genny's right cheek and chin. On both cheeks, there were recent burns in a grid pattern, which matched the grill of a blow dryer found in the Gonzales apartment.4 These appeared to have occurred within hours before Genny's death. One of these scars curved in a way that indicated Genny may have pulled away when it was inflicted. Both cheeks also bore multiple small circular marks, which could have been caused by the bristles of a brush. Inside Genny's lower lip was a laceration, extending down into the gutter between the gum and lip. This injury was inflamed, and could have been several days old.
Genny's neck was marked with linear scars, ulcerated in places, which were consistent with a long period of hanging with her weight partially supported by her feet. They were probably one to three weeks old. There were also linear, ulcerated scars around Genny's upper arms, which could have been caused by handcuffs over an extended period.5 Scars on her wrists could have been caused by handcuffs or by a cord. On her right shoulder were burn marks in a grid pattern matching the burns on Genny's cheeks, and the shoulder was scraped as well. The left arm had multiple injuries, including abrasions and a recent bruise, the handcuff scars, diagonal scars that appeared to be old injuries, and recent burns in the grid pattern. The top of the left shoulder was bruised and abraded, with some triangular scars. Genny's thighs were bruised in a pattern indicating that they had been grabbed forcefully, several times. There were ulcerated areas on the back of her ankles, which were several days to a couple of weeks old. Genny's spleen and thymus glands were atrophied, a sign of chronic stress.
The burn on Genny's lower body was a deep, third-degree burn, which removed the superficial layer of her skin. Areas on the back of her knees were spared, indicating that she had been kneeling when burned. Similar sparing was evident in the groin area, where the skin was pressed together and thus protected from the hot water. This burn, which extended from Genny's chest to her feet, was recent, probably hours old. It appeared to be a forcible immersion burn, in which she was held down with her hands and arms out of the water, unable to get herself up. There was no...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. Powell
...the merger doctrine to first degree felony murder premised on a predicate crime other than burglary. (See People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 942, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 253 P.3d 185 ["our preexisting jurisprudence had limited Wilson to cases of burglary felony murder where the defendant’......
-
People v. Baker
...sodomy, or penetration by foreign object, separate and apart from any intent to assault or kill. (See People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 942, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 253 P.3d 185 [even before Farley , Wilson was limited to situations in which "the defendant's only felonious purpose was to......
-
People v. Fayed
...Cal.Rptr.3d 846, 369 P.3d 521.) It is also misconduct to misstate the evidence or go beyond the record. ( People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 947, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 253 P.3d 185 ; People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 550, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 115 P.3d 417.) However, the prosecution "......
-
People v. Ramirez
...kill that was "rash, impulsive and [with little or no consideration of] the consequences." (Accord, e.g., People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 940, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 253 P.3d 185 ["It is fundamental that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying t......
-
Table of cases
...People v. Gonzales (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1684, §10:31.6 People v. Gonzales (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 382, §9:85 People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 933, §9:14.2 People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1281, §9:93 People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, §§5:12, 5:91.1.2 People v. Good......
-
Table of Cases null
...54 Cal. 4th 1234, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 757, 281 P.3d 834 (2012)—Ch. 1, §4.5.3; Ch. 3-A, §4.3.3; Ch. 5-E, §2.1; §3.2.3 People v. Gonzales, 51 Cal. 4th 894, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 253 P.3d 185 (2011)—Ch. 4-C, §3.4.1(2)(a) People v. Gonzales and Soliz, 52 Cal. 4th 254, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417, 256 P.......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...“basic trustworthiness and factual truthfulness are required” for admissibility under EC §402. Smith, quoting People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 933. See §9:28.7 for discussion on eyewitness identification. §9:15 Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Most of the questioning in DUI ca......
-
Expert witnesses
...Cal. Rptr. 3d 365. Evidence inadmissible on direct examination may be used to test an expert’s credibility. People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 894, 923, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1. When it is relevant to the bias of the witness, an expert may be questioned about his or her testimony in prior ca......