People v. Salcido

Decision Date30 June 2008
Docket NumberNo. S018814.,S018814.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ramon Bojorquez SALCIDO, Defendant and Appellant.

Conrad Petermann, Ojai, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Herbert F. Wilkinson and Ronald S. Matthias, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

Defendant Ramon Bojorquez Salcido appeals from a judgment of the San Mateo County Superior Court imposing a sentence of death following his conviction of six counts of first degree murder, one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), and two counts of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 189). The jury found true a multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation. (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) Defendant admitted the allegations that he personally used a firearm in the commission of counts I (Angela Salcido — murder), IV (Tracey Toovey — murder), and VIII (Kenneth Butti — attempted murder) (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (d)), that he personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the commission of counts II (Sofia Salcido — murder), III (Theresa Salcido — murder), V (Marion Louise Richards — murder), VI (Ruth Bernadette Richards — murder), VII (Marie Ann Richards — murder), and IX (Carmina Salcido — attempted murder) (Pen.Code, § 12022.5), and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of counts VIII and IX (Pen.Code, § 12022.7). After the jury determined that defendant's punishment should be death, the trial court imposed a sentence of death and also imposed sentence on the noncapital offenses. Defendant's appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).)1

We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase Evidence
1. The prosecution's case
a. The crimes

The evidence established that in the early morning hours of April 14, 1989, defendant drove his three young daughters, Sofia, Carmina, and Theresa to an isolated gulch used as a dumping site, where he cut their throats and left them, resulting in the deaths of Sofia and Theresa. Defendant drove to the residence of his mother-in-law, Marion Louise Richards, where he stabbed to death Marion and her daughters Ruth Bernadette Richards and Marie Ann Richards. Defendant returned home, where he shot to death his wife Angela. He proceeded to his workplace at Grand Cru Vineyard, where he shot to death his supervisor, Tracey Toovey, and then drove to the residence of another supervisor, Kenneth Butti, whom defendant shot and injured. The crimes took place within a period of approximately three hours.

Prior to 1980, while living in his native Mexico, at 18 years of age, defendant married a young woman who had become pregnant by another man. After giving birth, the woman abandoned defendant for the child's father. Following defendant's arrival in the United States that year, defendant moved to Kern County, where he married a second time, to Debra, who bore him a child. When their relationship ended, defendant moved away. The couple did not obtain a divorce. Defendant did not make child support payments.

In the mid 1980's, defendant married his third wife, Angela Richards, who had had a strict Catholic upbringing. They had three daughters, Sofia, Carmina, and Theresa, whom defendant appeared to love very much. Carmina was defendant's favorite.

In early 1987, defendant obtained a job at Grand Cru Vineyard in Sonoma County. Defendant's job responsibilities included operating the "bottling line." Tracey Toovey, the assistant wine maker, was defendant's supervisor. Several months after defendant's employment began, Kenneth Butti was hired. Butti assumed responsibility for running the bottling line and became defendant's primary supervisor. Butti believed defendant was a poor employee, and Toovey informed defendant that he needed to improve his job performance.

At the time of the murders in April 1989, defendant and his family resided in a small one-bedroom rental home that was part of a duplex at 201 Baines Street in Boyes Hot Springs. Their home was located several blocks from the Sonoma Mission Inn and approximately seven miles from Grand Cru Vineyard. Angela's parents, Robert and Marion Louise Richards, resided together with their two younger daughters in a rented home at 8393 Lakewood Avenue in Cotati.

Defendant was known by acquaintances as a frequent consumer of alcoholic beverages. He enjoyed "fancy" automobiles. Several months prior to the murders, he purchased a Pontiac Trans Am but in January 1989 transferred the vehicle to a friend after it proved difficult for him to make the payments. Defendant also drove a 1981 Buick Skylark. One month prior to the murders, defendant traded the Buick for a Ford LTD, and two days prior to the murders, he had that vehicle repainted.

On Tuesday, April 11, 1989, while he was at work, defendant was served for a second time with documents related to his second wife Debra's efforts to obtain child support, and he informed Butti, his supervisor, of that occurrence. On the following day, Angela Salcido told her neighbor, Connie Breazeale, that defendant previously had been married. Angela laughed about obtaining an annulment of her marriage to defendant.

On the evening of Thursday, April 13, 1989, Breazeale observed defendant load several boxes the size of wine cases into the trunk of his vehicle and drive away. After 9:00 that evening, Mark Ondrasek met defendant at McNeilly's Bar in El Verano, a neighboring community. Defendant sold Ondrasek two cases of sparkling wine that were in his vehicle. Michael Caratti, who recognized defendant from having seen him at several bars, also was at McNeilly's Bar. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Caratti and defendant went to the latter's vehicle, where defendant sold him nine bottles of sparkling wine that were in the trunk. Each of the men had cocaine in his possession and proceeded to snort a "line" (less than one-quarter gram). At defendant's suggestion, they drove to his home, where they ingested additional cocaine with Angela. After 20 minutes, defendant, who did not appear to have difficulty operating the car, drove Caratti back to the bar, where defendant attempted to obtain additional cocaine. The two men ingested the remaining cocaine in their possession. Caratti estimated they consumed a total of approximately one gram of cocaine. Defendant invited Caratti to meet him at the Sonoma Mission Inn to socialize with several women.

Prior to 2:00 a.m. on Friday, April 14, 1989, defendant's friend, Mario Mata, and his wife were asleep in the bedroom of their residence when defendant appeared. Defendant, who smelled of alcohol but did not appear extremely intoxicated, persuaded Mata to attend a party with him. Defendant told Mata that he was leaving the area the next day and that Mata's brother could move into defendant's house. Defendant asked Mata for $50 to purchase drugs but Mata refused. They drove to McNeilly's Bar, but Mata shortly had defendant drive him home. When defendant returned to the bar at 2:15 a.m., he was rejoined by Caratti and a friend, Larry Mateo, who in a separate vehicle followed defendant to the Sonoma Mission Inn. Caratti noticed that defendant did not appear to have any difficulty driving, but Caratti was "messed up" at the time and was unaware of defendant's state of intoxication.

Upon their arrival at the Sonoma Mission Inn, defendant entered the lobby while Caratti and Mateo waited in their vehicle. At approximately 2:50 a.m., Lela Brooks, the receptionist, conversed with defendant, who spoke very softly and "had trouble" speaking English. Defendant did not smell of alcohol or appear intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. He inquired about a reservation, referring to "Grande." Brooks did not find a reservation listed either for Grand Cru Vineyard or Salcido. A security guard who was out of defendant's sight line had observed two other men waiting outside and signaled to Brooks, "no." Brooks then suggested to defendant that he may have confused the hotel with the Sonoma Valley Inn and telephoned that hotel for him. Defendant spoke for several minutes with someone at the other hotel. As defendant walked outside, he spoke with the security guard, who detected a slight smell of alcohol on defendant but did not have difficulty understanding him. Defendant asked the guard the nightly rate to rent a room and, on hearing it was $200, indicated that was "too much." Defendant drove over to the other vehicle, and after having a short conversation he and the other two men drove off separately.

At 5:39 a.m., Angela withdrew $200 in cash from her and defendant's joint checking account from the automated teller machine at Wells Fargo Bank in downtown Sonoma, a distance of two and one-half miles from the Salcido residence. Angela departed from the bank on foot.

That morning, Angela's parents (Robert and Marion) and her two young sisters (Ruth and Marie) were in their residence on Lakewood Avenue. Robert departed for work prior to 7:00 a.m., and planned to leave directly for New York that evening without first returning home. At approximately the same time, a neighbor, Roy Curtis, saw the Richards family's Chihuahua barking, shaking, and looking at the Richards residence. Curtis never had seen the dog loose before and knocked on the front door, but no one answered. Curtis heard a man's voice, which might have come from a radio or television. At 7:00 a.m., the neighbor who resided directly across the street from the Richardses heard a woman's voice screaming "No, no."

Later the same day, the bodies of Marion and her daughter Marie, who was eight years of age, were discovered lying in the hallway...

To continue reading

Request your trial
400 cases
  • People v. Mani
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 2021
    ...by the defense.’ "8 ( People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 894, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 261 P.3d 243, quoting People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 150, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 186 P.3d 437.) Moreover, the prior acts evidence related to restraining order violations was also relevant to demonstr......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 21, 2018
    ......Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 166, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 186 P.3d 437, quoting People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1297, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543, 156 P.3d 1015.) " CALJIC No. 8.85 does not violate the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments by including vague factors, by failing to delete inapplicable ......
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 15, 2009
    ...We have not identified any error that was prejudicial, whether considered separately or cumulatively. (See People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 156, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 186 P.3d 437.) B. Asserted Errors Affecting the Penalty Phase of 1. Evidence that defendant possessed a loaded and conce......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 20, 2017
    ......(See People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 769–770, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 365, 365 P.3d 230 ; People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 79–80, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 383, 275 P.3d 496 ; People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 799, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531, 171 P.3d 548 ; see also People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 163, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 186 P.3d 437 [observing that such an instruction was misleading in that it would wrongly imply to the jury that at least one mitigating factor was required in order to return a verdict of life without parole].) Defendant argues that his case is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§10.3.9(2) People v. Salazar, 35 Cal. 4th 1031, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 16, 112 P.3d 14 (2005)—Ch. 4-C, §1.4.3(2)(a)[2][a] People v. Salcido, 44 Cal. 4th 93, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54, 186 P.3d 437 (2008)—Ch. 1, §2.1.2(3)(a) People v. Saldana, 19 Cal. App. 5th 432, 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (4th Dist. 2018)—C......
  • Alternative methods of proof
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...the prosecution to accept a stipulation that deprives the state’s case of its persuasiveness and forcefulness. People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 93, 147, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54. The evidence may also be admitted if it is relevant to an issue not covered by the stipulation. People v. Hall (1......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638, §2:110 Salazar, People v. (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 1078, 174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 395, §22:140 Salcido, People v. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 93, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54, §18:50 Salinas, People v. (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 20, 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202, §2:190 Salinas-Jacobo, People v. (2019) ......
  • Chapter 1 - §2. When is evidence relevant
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...because he offered to stipulate that he would not offer evidence in mitigation of victim-impact evidence); People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 147 (D unsuccessfully argued that photographic evidence of victims' bodies was irrelevant because he offered to stipulate to positions and condi......
  • 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