People v. Jurado
| Citation | 115 Cal.App.3d 470,171 Cal.Rptr. 509 |
| Decision Date | 09 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3936 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Guy JURADO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Appellant Guy Jurado was found amenable to prosecution as an adult (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 707) and, by information, was charged with Dominic Jurado of murdering Ronald Hawkins (Pen.Code, § 187), of robbing Lovella Weibel (Pen.Code, § 211), and of burglarizing the residence of Burt McBride (Pen.Code, § 459). At his arraignment, appellant pled not guilty to all charges and his case was severed from that of Dominic Jurado. 1 The court granted appellant's motions to dismiss the burglary count and to sever the murder/robbery counts for trial.
On July 7, 1978, appellant filed a notice of motion for change of venue, complete with points and authorities, copies of the allegedly prejudicial newspaper articles, and a declaration by appellant's counsel. This motion was denied on July 10, 1978. We summarily denied appellant's petition for writ of mandate on July 11, 1978.
A jury trial on the murder charge was held and appellant was found guilty of first degree murder. Subsequently, appellant was rearraigned on the robbery count and voluntarily entered a plea of nolo contendere which was accepted by the court. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and to the maximum four-year term on the robbery count. He filed a timely notice of appeal from the murder conviction.
On the evening of Saturday, March 11, 1978, appellant and his brother Dominic Jurado visited Lonnie Slaughter in his cabin. 2 According to Slaughter, appellant had two pistols, one of them being a .22 caliber automatic which he disassembled, and Dominic had a knife. Either appellant or Dominic said that they had stolen the guns from a Merced residence. Appellant told Slaughter that he was going to "check on a gas station in the middle of nowhere to rob." 3
In the early afternoon on March 12, 1978, service station attendant Ronald Hawkins was fatally shot at the Dos Palos Y Chevron service station. At about 2 p. m., appellant and Dominic bought a bag of Dorito chips and some other grocery items at Don's Liquors, which was located near the Chevron station. Around 2:15 p. m., Serrino Enriquez, Jr., operator of an Exxon service station behind the victim's place of employment, observed appellant's vehicle driving through his station. About the same time, Joanna Danison entered the Chevron station as the Jurado vehicle was speeding away. She indicated that either appellant or Dominic was the driver. 4 Danison's van was nearly hit by the exiting car, and she then saw Hawkins lying face down near the gas pumps.
Subsequent investigation by law enforcement officials revealed the presence of a credit invoice and credit card inside the Chevron service station office. The invoice contained writing which matched Hawkins' script; it indicated a dollar amount corresponding to the sale on one of the gas pumps and the license plate number from appellant's car. An investigating detective found a Dorito chip bag in the service station. Fingerprints from appellant and Dominic were found on the exterior of appellant's car.
Prosecution testimony established that Hawkins was killed by an aortal laceration attributable to a single bullet.
Between 3 and 5 p. m. on March 12, appellant and Dominic visited James Cortez at his house. Cortez testified that appellant and Dominic wanted to sell a .22 caliber pistol and a .32 caliber pistol. The three men drove to Misael Trevino's house for purposes of attempting to sell the two guns. The group then tested the pistols in the country; Trevino stated at trial that appellant was trying to sell the guns. 5 Trevino did not buy the pistols, the group returned to Cortez' house, and everyone but Cortez left the residence. 6 At about 5 p. m. that day, Slaughter went to appellant's house. Appellant asked for a ride in order to determine whether Dominic had been arrested. Policemen were surrounding appellant's car as they drove past it. On their way back from a liquor store, appellant told Slaughter about the service station incident. Appellant said that he and Dominic wanted to rob a station "in the middle of nowhere." According to Slaughter, appellant said he shot the station attendant when the attendant "reached for him."
At 7:30 p. m., a Merced Police Department dispatcher received a phone call from a "David Garcia," who desired to know if any warrants had been issued for the arrest of Guy Jurado. Slaughter and appellant returned to Slaughter's residence at approximately 11:30 p. m. Upon their return, appellant got out of Slaughter's car and attempted to leave. A police detective asked for his name, and appellant identified himself as "David Garcia." Appellant was placed under arrest by the police and Slaughter gave a statement coinciding generally with his trial testimony. Appellant even admitted that he identified himself as "David Garcia" in his call to the police dispatcher.
Dominic had been previously placed under arrest and gave a statement identifying appellant as Hawkins' slayer. Dominic subsequently took a polygraph test, which indicated that he was lying.
Following an interview with a police detective on March 14, 1978, appellant took officers to the Cortez residence. The same two pistols identified by Trevino were found wrapped in a towel. Appellant told the detective that Dominic had hidden the guns after they jointly went inside the garage area.
The .22 caliber bullet was recovered from Hawkins' body. On the Friday following the shooting, an attendant found a .22 shell casing near one of the pumps at the Chevron station. A state ballistics expert testified that the short shell casing conclusively matched with the .22 caliber weapon which appellant attempted to sell to Trevino. 7 The bullet in Hawkins' body had the same class characteristics as those associated with the .22 caliber gun recovered from appellant. Furthermore, .22 caliber short bullets of the same manufacturer as the killing bullet were found in appellant's car after his arrest. Glass fragments found at the service station had the same characteristics as fragments found in the interior of appellant's car.
Appellant's principal defense was to depict his brother Dominic as the perpetrator of the shooting, independent of his complicity in the robbery. Appellant took the stand on his own behalf and testified to the following version of the facts.
Initially, he stated that Slaughter and Dominic had stolen the .22 caliber pistol during the commission of a residential burglary. Appellant indicated that the two men were bragging about the weapon, and that Dominic had the gun with him while at Slaughter's cabin on the evening of March 11.
Appellant acknowledged that he was at the Chevron station when Ronald Hawkins was shot. He testified that he left Merced with his brother between 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday afternoon in order to visit his Godparents in Los Banos. Appellant was driving his car at the time. He exited the freeway at the Dos Palos Y and went to a liquor store, where Dominic purchased some food. They drove back under the freeway to purchase some gas, and appellant pulled into the driveway of an Exxon station before concluding that the prices were cheaper at a nearby Chevron station.
Appellant further testified that he pulled to the front pumps of the Chevron station, under the mistaken impression that the gasoline there was cheaper than at the self-service pumps. Appellant then went to the restroom. On his return, he unsuccessfully tried to phone his Godparents, but the call was disconnected. From the phone booth, he said he saw his brother looking under the hood while the attendant was putting gas in the car. Appellant said that he then returned to the car and got in the driver's seat as Dominic walked to the rear of the car. Appellant heard a loud noise and, as he looked around, he saw the attendant grab his chest and fall. Appellant said that Dominic had a gun at his side, even though he did not know Dominic had a gun with him until this point in time.
Dominic jumped in the driver's seat of the car and sped out of the station. As the car left the station, it almost collided with a van. Appellant slipped to the floor of the car, but he could see the top portion of the van as it passed. As they drove back to Merced, appellant swore at Dominic about the shooting. Appellant's testimony at trial was consistent with a statement made to a police detective on March 14.
Appellant has asked us to take judicial notice of three items; we postponed ruling on this matter pending oral arguments on the propriety of such a request. 8 The three items mentioned by appellant in his motion papers are: (1) a Merced newspaper article describing the trial court's denial of the change-of-venue motion, entitled "Murder Trial Venue Change Nixed"; 9 (2) the superior court record which was before this court in People v. Higlesias (5 Crim. 3745); 10 and (3) the county population data of various California counties during 1972-1977, as reported in the 1978 California Statistical Abstract. 11
Respondent opposes appellant's request on the following grounds: (1) the items were not presented before the superior court; (2) no reasonable explanation for such an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ainsworth
...95 Cal.Rptr. 798, 486 P.2d 694.) Rather, defendant appears to have been relatively anonymous in the community. (People v. Jurado (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 470, 488, 171 Cal.Rptr. 509.) Finally, we assess the voir dire of the prospective and actual jurors to determine if the pretrial publicity h......
-
People v. Ledesma
...but must be deemed waived (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 860, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776; People v. Jurado (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 470, 491-492, fn. 20, 171 Cal.Rptr. 509). In holding that "it is necessary that a Wheeler objection be made at the earliest opportunity during the ......
-
People v. Balderas
...798, 486 P.2d 694 ["hippie"-related murder] ), and he appears to have been relatively anonymous. (Cf., People v. Jurado (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 470, 488, 171 Cal.Rptr. 509.) All the victims were law-abiding citizens, and two, the jail guards, worked for law enforcement. However, none was espe......
-
People v. Adcox
...frequenting the area to camp or fish, defendant appears to have been relatively anonymous in the community. (People v. Jurado (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 470, 488, 171 Cal.Rptr. 509.) The fifth factor--the popularity and prominence of the victim--was at best neutral. Although one of the newspaper......