People v. Sotelo-Urena

Decision Date26 October 2016
Docket NumberA144021
Citation209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259,4 Cal.App.5th 732
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vladimir SOTELO–URENA, Defendant and Appellant.

Geoffrey M. Jones, Santa Monica, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine A. Rivlin, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Gregg E. Zywicke, Deputy Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Richman

, Acting P.J.

In April 2016, George Lowery, a 50–year–old homeless man, was beaten to death in San Diego County. Two brothers were charged with his kidnapping, torture, and murder. That same month, the homeless 51–year–old John Gerald Holiday was murdered near a dumpster in downtown Fresno.

The next month saw the murders of two more homeless individuals: 66–year–old Stephen Williams was found dead in a pond in Golden Gate Park. It was reported that two men, along with other assailants, had tortured Williams over a three-day period, eventually killing him and dumping his body in the pond. And 37–year–old Joshua William Clark died in Santa Rosa following a one-sided fight with another man over either cigarettes or a debt owed for marijuana. Both men were homeless and downtown Santa Rosa regulars.

In July 2016, the police arrested a man suspected of committing a series of attacks in San Diego that left three homeless men dead and at least two others seriously injured.

These tragedies in those few months are not anomalies—studies show that homeless individuals are the victims of crime at a significantly higher rate than housed individuals.

Here, on trial for the first degree murder of Nicholas Bloom, defendant Vladimir Sotelo–Urena—who was homeless—sought to introduce expert testimony to this effect, via an expert prepared to testify that as a result of this higher rate of victimization, homeless individuals experience a heightened sensitivity to perceived threats of violence. This evidence, defendant submitted, was relevant to his claim that he acted in self-defense or, at the very least, imperfect self-defense. The trial court excluded the testimony on the ground that it was irrelevant to defendant's claim that he actually and reasonably believed he needed to use lethal force to defend himself—that homelessness was a “common experience with the jurors and not subject to expert testimony.”

On appeal, defendant contends among other things, that the exclusion of the expert testimony was an abuse of discretion and deprived him of his constitutional right to present a complete defense, and that this error was prejudicial. We agree, and we reverse on that ground, without a need to address defendant's other arguments.

EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

In December 2013, 31–year–old defendant had been homeless for over two years. He had been living in Santa Rosa for five or six months, having moved from Las Vegas to attend Santa Rosa Junior College. While in Santa Rosa, he frequently spent the night downtown behind the Santa Rosa public library. Nicholas Bloom was also homeless and camped in downtown Santa Rosa.

Around 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. on December 24, Donovan Sweeden was in a downtown Santa Rosa homeless encampment that he shared with Bloom. He watched Bloom inject “a fat one”—an 80cc syringe of methamphetamine—described by a medical expert as a dosage large enough to kill someone who was not a regular user habituated to the drug. After shooting up, Bloom became “agitated,” “upset,” and “aggressive.” Sweeden described him as “hot.... [S]eemed to be somewhat out of it,” and said he “could be perceived” as violent and “explosive.”

Around 10:00 p.m., Bloom left the encampment and walked down Jeju Way, an alley that runs behind the Russian River Brewing Company and the Santa Rosa public library. He soon encountered defendant, an encounter that ended when defendant admittedly stabbed Bloom to death. Because defendant did not testify at trial, his version of what happened during that encounter came from two interviews with Santa Rosa police officers after his arrest. The recordings of those interviews were played for the jury, and were in substance as follows:

Defendant generally camped in the back of the library, most nights sleeping “down at the bottom level.” Defendant, who was Muslim, was sitting alone on the rear steps of the library reading the Quran when Bloom approached him from the direction of the Russian River Brewing Company. From Bloom's mannerisms, defendant believed he was “probably” intoxicated.

With an aggressive demeanor, Bloom asked if defendant had a cigarette. Defendant did not respond and continued to read. With an angry voice, Bloom asked if he spoke English, and defendant responded that he did. Bloom again asked if he had a cigarette, and defendant answered that he did not. Bloom moved even closer with a belligerent attitude, as if he wanted to fight.

Defendant had been stabbed a few weeks earlier, and he was “pretty sure” he recognized Bloom as one of his attackers: [H]e was one of the people that, one of the individuals that, you know, tried to harm me, tried to kill me in the past....”1 Bloom approached “like he's gonna do something,” and defendant thought, [O]h shit, another fight.” Bloom “went to grab something” from his pocket or waistband, and defendant believed he was grabbing a knife: “I didn't see a knife but I'm, but I'm pretty sure he had something in his hand 'cause he kept like, like he wanted, you know, and like I was getting stabbed again, essentially.” Defendant did not have good eyesight, but he thought he saw “something thin” with a “linear line” to it, and he believed Bloom was “gonna poke [him] or stab [him] or something.”

As Bloom got closer, defendant felt he was in danger because he had been through this before: “I just felt like I was in a position of danger and it was, and it got my nerves rattled, ya know? My adrenaline just jumped up.” He grabbed his backpack and pulled out a kitchen knife he had bought for protection after he was stabbed. At that point, Bloom was [p]retty close.” Defendant told Bloom to get away or he was “gonna send [him] straight to hell.” Bloom said, “oh really?” and laughed like he wanted to hurt defendant.

They then “got tangling” and “just started going at it.” They “kinda walked ... kinda waltzed” down to the end of the street, where defendant grabbed Bloom's shirt and went for his throat, stabbing him. Bloom fell to the ground on his back, and defendant “got on top of him [and] made sure that he didn't get up,” “made sure that he didn't pose a threat....” Defendant explained: “I wasn't gonna wait for him to get stabbed. Last time it happened is because I waited. And because ya know, I let, you know, him get the best of me, you know, and I wasn't gonna do that a second time.” Defendant continued to stab Bloom after he was down because he “had to make sure he didn't ... move.” After it was over, defendant was “pissed,” and he kicked Bloom in the head. According to defendant, the altercation started at the library steps and ended almost at the end of the street. He did not know how they got that far, although they were “lunging at each other....”

When asked if he knew how many times he had stabbed Bloom, defendant responded, a “Bunch of times,” and “A lot.” “Enough, enough to mess somebody up permanently.” When asked if he was trying to kill Bloom, defendant answered, “Essentially, yes. I wasn't tryin' to tickle him,” and “Obviously. I'm not gonna lie, yes.”

After stabbing Bloom, defendant walked back to the steps, put the knife in his backpack, and “just sat there.” He felt “sick,” “sad,” “kinda weak,” and “disgusted.”

He then waited for the police to arrive: “I mean, I wasn't gonna run. I wasn't gonna be like well, I didn't do it. 'Cause, I mean, I'm not gonna lie, I'm not supposed to lie about anything.”

Defendant denied that he tried to rob Bloom, that Bloom asked for money, or that they had been engaged in any kind of transaction. Bloom had not solicited a sexual encounter with defendant, and defendant denied having a sexual relationship with him. He denied that he had wanted payback for having been stabbed a few weeks earlier. Defendant claimed he did not know anything about money that was found on the ground and in Bloom's hands.

Defendant also told the police officers about another incident that occurred about six days before he was stabbed. It was a verbal altercation with someone else, and he did not know why but they wanna hurt me. They wanna kill me.”

Jeffrey Jones, a passerby, testified at defendant's trial. Around 10:30 p.m. on December 24, 2013, Jones left the Russian River Brewing Company and walked through Jeju Way on his way home. He passed by defendant, who was sitting on the library steps 10 to 12 feet away. As he continued walking, he noticed a crumpled $20 bill on the ground. About 30 steps away in a very dark area of the alley, he saw a body on the ground and blood everywhere. Next to the body, there was a wallet and four crumpled $20 bills. In Bloom's hand, there were crumpled $20 bills and a tube of lip balm.

Jones immediately called 911. While he was on the phone, he turned back in the direction of the steps and saw defendant still sitting there with a bag next to him. He walked back towards defendant, who stood up, picked up his bag, and then sat back down again. Jones stopped about 60 feet away from defendant and called out to ask if he had seen anything.

The police arrived almost immediately. When they arrived, Jones pointed out defendant sitting on the steps.

Defendant was arrested shortly thereafter. An officer on the scene asked him what had happened, and he responded, “I got them before they got me.”

Another officer asked defendant if he was okay,2 and he answered, “No, he was trying to kill me.” Asked where the knife was, defendant said it was in his backpack. A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • People v. Dryden
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 16 de fevereiro de 2021
    ...streets. We agree that homeless persons are more vulnerable to violence than the housed population. (See People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 747, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 [recognizing that "homeless individuals are victims of violent crime at a much higher rate than the general popu......
  • People v. Morales
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 de setembro de 2021
    ...must actually believe in the need to defend ... against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury.’ " ( People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 744, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 259.)Drawing inferences from the record in favor of Morales, he was an indigent person carrying all of his posses......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 de dezembro de 2020
    ...prejudice in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson). (People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136, 1163; accord People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 756.) " '[U]nder Watson, a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained a......
  • Wilkins v. Lynch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 12 de março de 2021
    ...believe in the need to defend . . . against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury.' [Citation.]" (People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal. App. 5th 732, 744 (Sotelo-Urena).)The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense that appellant must reasonably believe he or others present at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§11.1.1(1)(i) People v. Soriano, 65 Cal. App. 5th 278, 279 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569 (4th Dist. 2021)—Ch. 2, §11.2.5 People v. Sotelo-Urena, 4 Cal. App. 5th 732, 209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 259 (1st Dist. 2016)—Ch. 2, §11.1.1(1)(j); Ch. 4-A, §7.1.1(1) People v. Soto, 248 Cal. App. 4th 884, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d ......
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...Dist.2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1091, 1110-11. • The psychological effects of homelessness. E.g., People v. Sotelo-Urena (1st Dist.2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 755-56 (homeless people's persistent exposure to danger and psychological impact of chronic homelessness is beyond knowledge of jurors). (k)......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 de março de 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 116, §22:10 Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1548, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552, §18:20 Sotelo-Urena, People v. (2016) 4 Cal. App. 5th 732, 209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 259, §17:60 Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc. (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 165, 191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 263, §22:200 Soto, People ......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 de março de 2023
    ...Rptr. 3d 445], the subject matter of an expert opinion need not be completely unfamiliar to the jury. People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal. App. 5th 732, 753, 209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 259. The trial court has a high degree of discretion to determine the qualifications of experts and the scope of th......
  • 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