People v. Sanchez

Decision Date29 April 2019
Docket NumberS087569
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Juan SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Nina Wilder, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler, Rebecca Whitfield and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

After two juries were unable to reach a verdict, a third jury convicted defendant, Juan Sanchez, of the first degree murders of Ermanda Reyes and Lorena Martinez under the special circumstances of multiple murder and, as to Lorena Martinez, rape by instrument. It also found true that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of both murders. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict and imposed a judgment of death. This appeal is automatic. We affirm the judgment.

I. THE FACTS
A. Guilt Phase
1. Overview

The evidence supported a jury finding that early in the morning of August 4, 1997, defendant entered the Porterville home of Ermanda Reyes (Ermanda) and her 17-year-old daughter, Lorena Martinez (Lorena), sexually assaulted Lorena, then shot and killed both mother and daughter. (All future dates in this factual recitation are to the year 1997 unless otherwise indicated.)

Defendant presented evidence trying to raise a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes.

2. Prosecution Evidence

In early August, Ermanda lived on North Wellington Street in Porterville with her daughter, Lorena, her 13-year-old son, Victor M. (Victor), and her five-year-old son, Oscar H. (Oscar). Rosa Chandi, the sister of Ermanda’s former husband, Efrain M. (Lorena’s and Victor’s father), lived with several family members nearby on North Wellington. Victor spent the night of Sunday to Monday, August 3-4, at his father’s house, but Ermanda, Lorena, and Oscar were home that night.

Chandi woke early on the morning of Monday, August 4. A short time later, she observed Oscar approach her house alone. Oscar told her that his mother and Lorena were "sleeping," were "bleeding" and "cut," and he could not wake them. Chandi went with Oscar to the Reyes home. The front door was open, and Chandi entered with Oscar. Inside, she saw Ermanda’s and Lorena’s bodies in their respective bedrooms. She returned to her home and dialed 911. Officer Larry Rodriguez was the first to respond, arriving around 5:48 a.m. He entered the house and observed the bodies. Other responders soon arrived.

Lorena’s body was in her bedroom lying partially on the bed and partially on the floor. She was wearing a bloody T-shirt that had been pulled up over her stomach area and a bra that had been pulled up enough to expose one breast. The bra had a one-inch cut that a knife might have made. Bloodstained underpants were around Lorena’s knees. A separate piece torn from the underpants was on the floor nearby. A black-handled, silver-bladed steak knife was found on the bed under Lorena’s body.

Blood was found in various places in the house, including a trail leading from outside Lorena’s bedroom into the master bedroom, where Ermanda’s body was located. Ermanda’s body was lying on the floor next to the bed. A telephone was on a nightstand near the bed, but the handset to the telephone was on the floor. The physical evidence indicated that Lorena had been shot in her bedroom, and Ermanda had been shot outside Lorena’s bedroom, then managed to return to her bedroom, where she died.

Lorena died of wounds to the chest from two gunshots. Fresh bruising and scratching in her genital and anal areas indicated she had been sexually assaulted by an instrument of some kind. Ermanda bled to death from a gunshot wound through the chest. She could have engaged in physical activity briefly before she died.

Investigators found three bullets, one in Lorena’s mattress, one in her clothes, and one in the family room that had passed through her bedroom wall. They also found two unexpended cartridges in her bedroom. All came from the same gun, "[m]ore than likely" a nine-millimeter Luger semiautomatic handgun.

Detective Ty Lewis was dispatched to the crime scene at 5:45 a.m. that morning. When he arrived, he entered the Reyes home briefly, then went to the Chandi residence, where he spoke individually with Chandi and others. Chandi told him about a "boyfriend" she had seen recently at the Reyes house who might have committed the crime. She did not know his name, but she described him and said he drove a yellow truck. Detective Lewis spoke briefly with Oscar, who seemed "very calm." Oscar told him that "he had been sleeping in his mother’s bedroom on the floor and that he awoke to a man’s loud voice, and there was a man standing in the bedroom." At that point, Oscar became nonresponsive, and Detective Lewis ended the interview.

Sergeant Chris Dempsie spoke with Oscar alone around 7:00 a.m. that morning at the Chandi house. During the interview, Oscar was emotional. "Periodically, he would stop crying and answer questions, but he was crying when he first came to me, and I believe he was crying towards the end of the interview also." Oscar told Sergeant Dempsie that he had been sleeping in his mother’s bed and was "awakened by firecrackers." He "saw his mother coming towards the telephone that was next to his bed, and he also saw a man in the room with her." His mother was bleeding. She grabbed the telephone, then fell backwards. Oscar said that the man had a "wisp on his chin"; when he said that, Oscar brushed his chin with his hand. Oscar also said he was the man who "had brought him ice cream." Oscar said he tried to wake his mother but could not. He also saw blood on the walls and saw his sister and heard her screaming. She was bleeding. Then he ran outside to his aunt’s house.

After speaking with Oscar, Sergeant Dempsie spoke with Victor, who had come to the Chandi house when he heard what had happened. He asked if Victor knew of someone who had brought Oscar ice cream. Victor testified that until that point, he was unaware defendant might have been involved in the crime. But he remembered that the previous Saturday, August 2, Oscar was eating ice cream at home. Defendant was present. Victor testified that Oscar told him at the time that "Juan" had gotten him the ice cream. Later in his testimony, Victor clarified that he had remembered the name "Juan" from seeing defendant at the Reyes house that weekend. Oscar did not use the name at the time. Thus, Victor told the police that "Juan" had given Oscar the ice cream. Victor was also able to tell the police where defendant lived because Victor’s family had once lived near him.

Later that morning, Sergeant Eric Kroutil obtained a photograph of defendant and showed it to Oscar. In the photograph, defendant had a mustache but no goatee. Oscar said the photograph was of "Juan," and he was the man he had seen in the house earlier that morning. At the time, Sergeant Kroutil was aware that Victor, not Oscar, had first used the name "Juan."

Defendant was arrested in his home in Porterville around 11:00 to 11:20 a.m. the same morning. After defendant’s arrest, Sergeant Dempsie showed Oscar a photographic lineup containing a photograph of defendant taken that day. In this photograph, defendant had both a mustache and a goatee. Oscar identified defendant’s photograph as that of Juan, the man who had given him ice cream and was in the house the morning of the murders. The interview was videotaped, and the videotape was played to the jury. During the interview, in addition to identifying defendant’s photograph, Oscar added new details about what had occurred in the house that morning. He said that he hit Juan in the stomach; that Juan had a knife and a gun in his hand; that two men were in the room, one named Juan and one named Michael; and that Juan left the house in his yellow truck.

The same morning, Detective Steve Ward obtained a warrant to search defendant’s home. He seized a steak knife with a black handle that he observed on a kitchen counter. He looked for, but could not find, a similar knife. Mary Lucio, defendant’s wife, testified that she had bought that knife and a similar but smaller knife at a "99-cent store" the previous February. She could not remember what happened to the second knife. She said she told police it probably got lost or was thrown away in the trash. After his arrest, defendant wrote a letter to Mary in Spanish telling her "to remember the knife that you had lost cutting cantaloupe." After receiving the letter, she told police that she lost the knife cutting cantaloupe. But at trial, she testified that she did not know what had happened to it.

A forensic metallurgist testified that he compared the knife found in Lorena’s bedroom with the knife seized from defendant’s house. He said that certain "design characteristics of the items suggest [a] common manufacturer," but he could not be certain.

Sergeant Kroutil interviewed defendant in English for about 30 to 40 minutes the afternoon of his arrest. Defendant "appeared concerned for his friends, cooperative ... like he was wanting to help." After defendant was given and waived his Miranda rights ( Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ), he said he had known Ermanda but had not seen her for about two years until the previous Saturday, August 2. On that Saturday, he went to her home and drank beer with her for about three hours. He also bought ice cream for Oscar. The evening of Sunday, August 3, he spent some time at the home of Hector Hernandez, then returned to his home, where he spent the night. Lucio woke him that morning around 8:00 a.m., and he stayed in bed until 8:45 a.m.

When Sergeant Kroutil showed ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
117 cases
  • People v. Keo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2019
  • People v. Leon
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 23, 2020
  • People v. Wilson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 12, 2021
    ...suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." ’ " ( People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 35, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 296, 439 P.3d 772.) If we determine the procedure was suggestive, no due process violation arises if " ‘ "the identification itself......
  • People v. Suarez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 13, 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 342, §10:180 Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391, 250 Cal. Rptr. 787, §18:30 Sanchez, People v. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 14, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296, §§6:130, 7:70, 9:120, 17:120 Sanchez, People v. (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 665, 204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 102, §17:160 Sanchez, Peopl......
  • Witness competence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...does not show an inability to understand the oath or to communicate, or indicate a lack of personal knowledge. People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 14, 32-33, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296. Whether aspects of the testimony are believable is a question of credibility, not competency. Adamson v. Depar......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...intentional, and the expert’s opinion of the defendant’s knowledge or intent would not have assisted the jury. People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 14, 46–47, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296. A trial court acted within its discretion when it precluded an expert from opining on a minor eyewitness’s cre......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. 5th 632, 699, 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18. The relationship between a witness and a party may show possible bias. People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 14, 54, 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (sexual relationship). Although it is common for counsel to ask a witness on cross-examination if they discussed ......
  • 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