People v. Saldana, Cr. 25685

Citation121 Cal.Rptr. 243,47 Cal.App.3d 954
Decision Date06 May 1975
Docket NumberCr. 25685
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Jesse SALDANA, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals

Roland H. Fairfield, Santa Barbara, for defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow and Howard J. Schwab, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

BEACH, Associate Justice.

After a court trial, jury having been waived, Michael Saldana and his codefendant Ruben Arebalo 1 were convicted of second degree murder of one Joseph Fenoff. Saldana, who had just turned 18 at the time of trial, was sent to the California Youth Authority. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

FACTS:

Debra Fenoff, the victim's sister, thought that defendant Arebalo was following her in his car as she walked home from a friend's house on the evening of December 10, 1973. After going home she went out for a short while; when she returned, Arebalo was parked across the street from her home. On her brother Cliff's advice, she asked Arebalo why he was following her; he denied following her. 2 After Cliff asked him to leave, Arebalo drove away.

Cliff and a friend drove to a liquor store. While Cliff was away, Arebalo, appellant and some others arrived in Arebalo's car. Arebalo asked where the 'big mouth' was, apparently referring to Cliff. Several witnesses testified about the following incidents. The exact sequence of events is unclear, but as Cliff and his friends were returning, Mike Saldana shot Joe Fenoff in the neck from close range. Michelle Ehlers testified that Joe said to Mike 'Why don't you talk reasonable to my brother?' to which Mike replied 'Shut up or I will shoot you.' Debra Fenoff saw Mike with his arm extended, heard a pop, and saw Joe grabbing his neck. Sandra Lee Gannon testified Joe told Mike he was going to get himself in trouble, that he should talk things over; Joe tried to knock the gun out of Mike's hand, but he missed and Mike shot him. According to Sandy's version, the gun was originally pointed at Cliff. Although he later changed his story, Mike did at one time admit to the police that he shot Joe.

Both appellant and Arebalo admitted being at the scene of the crime. They said they had gone to straighten out the false report that Arebalo had been following Debra Fenoff. Mike Saldana had gone along since he knew the Fenoff family. They testified that Manuel Ayala, who denied any complicity in the crime, fired the shot.

The victim, Joe Fenoff, was shot on December 10, 1973. He died on December 19, 1973. According to medical testimony the cause was a single gunshot wound to the neck.

Dr. William Bezdek testified that Joe's brain had died; there was no electrical activity in the brain starting on December 17, and no clinical activity since the time of admission. Without drugs and the respirator, Joe's other organs such as heart and lungs would have ceased to function in short order. With particular care, the hospital could have sustained Joe's heartbeat for 'probably several weeks to a month.' Dr. Bezdek defined death as 'a failure of part of that organism such that the total organism is no longer functioning in a manner which a reasonable, intelligent person would recognize as the purpose of that organism.'

He testified that Joe was dead when he arrived at the hospital and that there has been no known case of recovery after documented absence of electrical activity in the brain. 3 Medical literature sees brain death as synonymous with death. Dr. Bezdek stated that the severance of a carotid artery in Joe's brain caused his death.

Attorneys for Arebalo and Saldana both moved to dismiss the case on the ground that an intervening act caused the victim's death.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL:

1. There was insufficient evidence regarding the identity of the gunman.

2. There was an independent, intervening cause of death; appellant should not be held criminally responsible for the death of Joseph Fenoff.

DISCUSSION:

1. There was sufficient evidence to support the judgment.

Appellant was observed at the scene of the crime by several witnesses. Some had earlier indicated that one Manuel Ayala was the triggerman, but they explained the circumstances of that identification to the court's satisfaction. Appellant's later explanation of his confession of the shooting was apparently not accepted by the court; he testified that he confessed so that the police would not file against his brother and another person, neither of whom was even at the scene of the crime.

An appellate court does not reweigh the evidence. Rather, our task is to determine if substantial evidence supports the judgment. (People v. Reilly, 3 Cal.3d 421, 425, 90 Cal.Rptr. 417, 475 P.2d 649.) The credible testimony of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Patterson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 2006
    ...(citing State v. Fierro, 124 Ariz. 182, 603 P.2d 74 (1979); Porter v. State, 308 Ark. 137, 823 S.W.2d 846 (1992); People v. Saldana, 47 Cal.App.3d 954, 121 Cal.Rptr. 243 (1975); State v. Guess, 44 Conn.App. 790, 692 A.2d 849 (1997), aff'd, 244 Conn. 761, 715 A.2d 643 (1998); Johnson v. Stat......
  • Com. v. Golston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1977
    ...control the law of homicide. Recent homicide cases in other jurisdictions support the judge's rulings. People v. Saldana, 47 Cal.App.3d 954, 958-959, 121 Cal.Rptr. 243 (1975). State v. Brown, 8 Or.App. 72, 75-76, 491 P.2d 1193 (1972). See In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 51-52, 355 A.2d 647 (1976......
  • Matter of J. N.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 1979
    ...result of two fires, only one of which set by defendant; defendant liable for second degree murder). 11. E. g., People v. Saldana, 47 Cal.App.3d 954, 121 Cal.Rptr. 243 (1975) (death occurred prior to removal of artificial life support 12. E. g., State v. Johnson, 56 Ohio St.2d 35, ___, 381 ......
  • People v. Butcher
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 2016
    ...credibility on appeal. (People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 200, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 125, 186 P.3d 496 ; People v. Saldana (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 954, 958, 121 Cal.Rptr. 243.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked defendant's probation.B. Issues We Have Ordered Brief......

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