People v. San Nicolas

Decision Date06 December 2004
Docket NumberNo. S028747.,S028747.
Citation101 P.3d 509,34 Cal.4th 614,21 Cal.Rptr.3d 612
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rodney Jesse SAN NICOLAS, Defendant and Appellant.

Wesley A. Van Winkle, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Berkeley, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Harry Joseph Colombo, Charles A. French, Margaret Venturi and Jesse Witt, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certiorari Denied October 3, 2005. See 126 S.Ct. 46.

MORENO, J.

A jury convicted defendant Rodney Jesse San Nicolas of the first degree murders of his wife Mary San Nicolas (also known as Mary James) and Mary's nine-year-old niece April James (Pen.Code, ? 187, subd. (a)),1 and found true the personal use of a knife allegations as to these murders. (?? 12022, subd. (b)(1) (Mary), 12022.3, subd. (a) (April).) The jury also convicted defendant of forcibly raping April James (? 261, subd. (a)(2)) and of forcibly committing a lewd and lascivious act upon her (? 288, subd. (b)(1)), and found true the great bodily injury allegation connected with these two sex offenses (? 12022.8). The jury found true four special-circumstance allegations: multiple murder (? 190.2, subd. (a)(3)); killing to prevent a witness, April James, from testifying (? 190.2, subd. (a)(10)); killing in the commission of the rape of April James (?? 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 261, subd. (a)(2)); and killing in the commission of a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14, April James (?? 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 288, subd.(b)(1).) After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied the automatic motion to modify the penalty (? 190.4, subd. (e)) and sentenced defendant to death. This appeal is automatic. (? 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
A. Guilt Phase.
1. Prosecution Evidence.
a. Background.

In May 1990, defendant lived in a small two-bedroom home on the southern edge of Modesto, California with his wife, Mary James San Nicolas, and five of Mary's relatives, including 15-year-old Sun. and 12-year-old Sarah, Mary's daughters from earlier marriages. Two additional children belonging to Mary's brother, Anthony James, also were staying with the family for a few weeks?€”nine-year-old April and 12-year-old Arlo. Mary's stepfather, Eugene Lee, lived in a makeshift room in the detached garage beside the house. The house itself had a single bathroom and four main rooms. The front door opened into the living room, which was divided into half by a chest of drawers and cabinet. Mary slept behind the chest and cabinet on a fold-out bed. To the right of the living room was the front bedroom, which Sun. shared with April. At the rear of the house, and accessible only through the first bedroom, was a second bedroom, which Sarah and Arlo shared.

Defendant and Mary were first married in 1987 and lived together for a short time, but defendant was convicted of embezzlement and sent to prison shortly thereafter. Defendant returned to the house after his release in September 1989. Upon his return, he and Mary began having marital problems relating to his inability to find a job and support the family. Defendant and Mary argued frequently, resulting in defendant sometimes sleeping in the fold-out bed and sometimes in the living room rocking chair.

Defendant and Mary both drank heavily, which exacerbated the frequent arguments between the two. On Friday, May 4, 1990, defendant turned down a job offer, saying he had to pick up Sarah from camp instead. On Saturday, May 5, Mary told a coworker that she and defendant had been arguing about money, that he would not work or attend the job interviews she obtained for him. The co-worker recounted that Mary told her that defendant had requested money a number of times the previous week but that Mary had refused, stating, "I wonder what he's going to do to me." That same evening, defendant went to the Hide Out bar, a country-western nightclub on the outskirts of Modesto, and spoke with Linda Lee Ollar, making derogatory comments about women in general and later about Mary. He stated that he had come there to look for Mary, and "whatever I do, she's going to know what she's lost." Ollar remarked to the bouncer that defendant was "going to murder his wife if she comes in...."

b. Events of May 6, 1990.

Early the next morning, on Sunday, May 6, Mary and her stepfather, Eugene Lee, began drinking beer in the backyard with some of Lee's friends. The gathering soon turned into a backyard barbecue, with a number of people in attendance. Defendant remained apart from much of the group, appearing to be angry. He commented to Rusty James, Mary's brother, that he was tired of drunks. Twelve-year-old Daniel H., a next door neighbor, testified that he had heard defendant and Mary arguing that afternoon in the backyard. Daniel heard defendant tell Mary, "You stupid bitch, just wait until I get you." Defendant then grabbed Mary by the arm, pushed her against the back wall of the house, and told her, "this is what you deserve." According to Daniel, Mary was crying during this exchange and told defendant to stop. Daniel thought both defendant and Mary were drunk.

The party continued in the backyard, and a number of friends of Mary and Eugene Lee had joined the group. Defendant was drinking by himself at a table near the kitchen door, remaining aloof from the group in the backyard. At some point after 6:45 p.m., but before sunset at 7:45 p.m., Mary went inside the house to use the restroom and did not return. Eugene Lee later entered the house to look for food in the kitchen. He saw defendant and Mary on the hide-a-bed, arguing over defendant's lack of job prospects. Mary told defendant that he would have to leave, to which defendant did not respond.

At about 8:30 p.m. that night, Arlo returned to the house. Defendant came to the door and opened it to let Arlo in, and directed him to go to the kitchen and get some dinner. Arlo asked defendant where his sister April was, and defendant replied that April had gotten scared so he had taken her home. As Arlo walked through the living room, he noticed that Mary was lying on her back on the hide-a-bed couch, with her feet out straight, her arms at her sides, and the covers pulled up to her chin. Sun. returned home soon after, accompanied by her friend, Robert E. Sun. noticed that defendant was wearing cut-off sweat pants, not the same clothing he had been wearing earlier in the evening. She observed defendant sitting on Mary's bed, with Mary lying in the position described above. Sun. attempted to greet Mary, but defendant warned her not to disturb her mother, as she had passed out.

Sarah returned home at 9:00 p.m. accompanied by her friend Rodney S. Sarah and Rodney went straight to Sarah's bedroom, and Rodney noticed that defendant appeared nervous but not intoxicated. Rodney and Robert E. departed the home shortly after 9:00 p.m.

At about 9:15 p.m., Mary's cousin, Lois, approached the main house. Defendant came out the back door and told her that nobody was there, and that Mary was at the house of Lois's grandfather, that the children were in church, and that April had been picked up by her parents. Lois tried to enter the home, and defendant refused her entry, again stating that he was there by himself. Lois testified that defendant appeared very nervous and scared, and was holding a knife in one hand and a cloth in the other.

Just past 10:00 p.m., Sun. received a call from a friend on the phone in her room. Shortly thereafter, Arlo wanted to call his parents, but could not get a dial tone. Defendant explained to them that the phone was not working because Mary had knocked it into the dog's water dish. Everyone went to bed about this time. Sun. testified that she stayed awake for some time that night, and at one point heard a door close and saw defendant leaving the house. She heard a car start up outside, and soon fell asleep. Later the following day, Eugene Lee discovered that the telephone line that ran into Sun.'s room had been cut outside her bedroom door.

c. Discovery of the Bodies.

On Monday morning, May 7, Sun., Sarah, and Arlo found a note from defendant on the kitchen table, stating, "Mom and I went out for a while. Behave yourselves and we will see you after school. Love you both, M[Mom] and N. [Nick]."

Shortly thereafter, Sarah and Arlo discovered Mary's body behind the couch. The body of April James was found in the bathroom by the bathtub, concealed in an alcove shelf area behind some boxes.

Mary's body was dressed in a long cotton nightgown, the front of which was covered with blood stains. Her left jawbone was fractured, there were bruises on her chin and neck, and a five-inch-long cut on her neck had severed both carotid arteries. There were 17 stab wounds to Mary's chest, five of which would have been fatal. According to testimony of the pathologist, Dr. William Ernoehazy, Mary's wounds were caused by a reasonably sharp knife about one-to-two inches wide and eight-to-10 inches long. Several flat, triangular-shaped wounds indicated that the knife had broken during the attack, but the assailant had continued to use it. Mary's heart had been penetrated by a knife four times, her left lung eight times, and her right lung two times. The blood-alcohol level in Mary's body was 0.13 percent. The cause of death was the cut to Mary's throat and the stab wounds to her chest.

April's body was dressed in a long-sleeved sweatshirt that was soaked in blood. She had multiple stab wounds in her chest and back, and a linear defensive cut on her left wrist. The chest wounds, two of which punctured the heart, were determined to have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
520 cases
  • People v. Molano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2019
    ...462 U.S. 1039, 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 ( Bradshaw ) (plur. opn. of Rehnquist, J.); see People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 641–642, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 612, 101 P.3d 509.) The trial court found that defendant initiated conversation with the officers in unrecorded statements......
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...P.3d 523.) A juror's receipt or discussion of evidence not submitted at trial constitutes misconduct. (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 650, 21 Cal. Rptr.3d 612, 101 P.3d 509.) Juror misconduct raises a rebuttable presumption of prejudice; a trial court presented with competent ......
  • People v. Pettigrew
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 2021
    ...deliberation and premeditation—requires nothing more than a ‘successive thought[ ] of the mind.’ " ( People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 658, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 612, 101 P.3d 509.) "[P]lanning activity occurring over a short period of time is sufficient to find premeditation." ( People......
  • People v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 28, 2021
    ...CALCRIM No. 521 ), there was no need to also instruct with the language of CALJIC No. 8.71. (See, e.g., People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 675, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 612, 101 P.3d 509 ["a judge need not include a legally correct jury instruction when it is duplicative of other instructio......
  • 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
    ...§3.1.2(3)(a) People v. Sanghera, 6 Cal. App. 5th 365, 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382 (3d Dist. 2016)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(e) People v. San Nicolas, 34 Cal. 4th 614, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612, 101 P.3d 509 (2004)—Ch. 5-C, §2.2.2(4)(b) People v. Santiago, 55 Cal. App.4th 1540, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 794 (2d Dist. ......
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...argumentative a proposed instruction that correctly states the law but emphasizes portions of the evidence. People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 614, 673, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612; Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 915, 924, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 325. These instructions bring certain facts i......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Coastal Landowners’ Assn. v. County of San Mateo (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 523, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 117, §18:20 San Nicolas, People v. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 614, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612, §§3:80, 22:60, 22:170 Sanchez v. Bagues & Sons Mortuaries (1969) 271 Cal. App. 2d 188, 76 Cal. Rptr. 372, §10:200 S......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...is "reasonably contemporaneous" with the initial waiver of Miranda rights. Williams, 49 Cal.4th at 434; People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 640; People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 170. As with the federal approach, courts look at the totality of the circumstances to make their ......
  • 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