People v. Suarez

Decision Date13 August 2020
Docket NumberS105876
Citation10 Cal.5th 116,267 Cal.Rptr.3d 418,471 P.3d 509
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arturo Juarez SUAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Snedeker, Smith & Short, Michael R. Snedeker and Lisa R. Short for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Alice B. Lustre and Leif M. Dautch, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by LIU, J.

After this case was transferred from Placer County to Napa County, a jury found defendant Arturo Juarez Suarez guilty of the first degree murders of José Martinez, Juan Martinez, J.M., and A.M. ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ) and found true the allegations that he personally used a firearm in the murders of José and Juan (id. § 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the murders of J.M. and A.M. (id. § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). (All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The jury found true the special circumstances that he committed these murders while lying in wait (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(15)) and that he had been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also found him guilty of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), unlawful penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), and kidnapping to commit rape (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)) of Y.M., and the jury found true the enhancement allegations for those offenses. Following the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court sentenced him to death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Case
a. Before the murders

Arturo Juarez Suarez (Juarez) was a seasonal worker at the Parnell Ranch in Auburn in 1998. He lived in a trailer on the ranch and worked six days a week, typically taking Sundays off. He was married to Maria Isabel Juarez de Martinez (Isabel), and he was friends with her brothers José and Juan Martinez, all of whom had grown up in the same town in Mexico.

José and his wife Y.M. lived in Galt with their five-year-old son, J.M., and three-year-old daughter, A.M. Juan also lived with them. Juarez often spent holidays and weekends with the family. He had a good relationship with J.M. and A.M.

Y.M. testified that Juarez made her uncomfortable on two occasions, a few years before the capital crimes. One time, he grabbed her waist, she told him to let her go, he said he was not going to do anything, and he let her go. She slapped his face, and he told her not to hit him. Another time, he touched her ribs and her neck, and she told him to leave her alone. She told José about one of these occasions, and it caused some problems that were ultimately resolved.

On July 4, 1998, José, Y.M., J.M., A.M., and Juan visited San Francisco without telling Juarez. When they returned, Juarez and his friend Ernesto Orozco were at the Martinezes’ home. Juarez and Orozco spent the night there. Y.M. thought Juarez seemed upset when they said that they had not been able to call him before they had left for San Francisco that day. Orozco testified that he did not notice any problems, but on the drive there, he commented that the Parnell Ranch seemed like a nice place to live, and Juarez replied, "You're way off. One can go crazy here by oneself."

Before leaving, Juarez made plans with José for the next weekend. Y.M. testified that her family planned to pick him up from the Parnell Ranch on Sunday, July 12 and give him their car to attend an immigration appointment on Monday, July 13. Juarez told his boss, Jack Parnell, that he planned to work on July 12 and take off July 13.

b. July 12, 1998

At 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. on July 12, José, Y.M., J.M., A.M., and Juan arrived at the Parnell Ranch. José wore a watch, Juan wore gold chains, and both carried wallets. Y.M. wore green shorts, a white shirt, and tennis shoes.

When they arrived, they did not see Juarez. Y.M. went to his trailer to retrieve some soap to wash their car. As she returned to the car, she saw Juarez and José walking together toward it. She did not see Juan. Before washing the car, José needed to fix an issue with the car's battery, and Juarez gave him a knife to assist. While José fixed the issue, Juarez left. When Juarez returned, he asked José to accompany him, which José did. Y.M. finished washing the car, went toward the trailer, and saw Juarez and José standing in the field.

Juarez returned and asked Y.M. for the car keys, which she gave him. He went into his trailer, changed his pants, and asked her if she wanted anything from the store. She requested chips and a tea drink. Around this time, she noticed a rifle "standing there," although she did not recall its precise location. Once he left, she walked around the ranch with her children for an hour and a half.

Juarez returned with chips, a tea drink, and beer. Y.M. asked where José and Juan were, and Juarez said that they were cleaning and cutting a deer that he had killed. Juarez asked her to cut some aluminum foil for the deer meat and said that he was going back to the deer. After cutting some foil, Y.M. sat in a chair outside the trailer. J.M. and A.M. played Nintendo, which Juarez had turned on for them, inside the trailer, and later came outside.

Suddenly, Juarez put a rope around Y.M.’s neck, dragged her to the trailer, and kicked her. Her children cried; J.M. yelled, "Don't hit my mommy," and A.M. hugged J.M. Juarez shouted at J.M. to shut up. Y.M. lost consciousness.

Inside the trailer, Juarez put a chain around Y.M.’s neck, tied her wrists behind her back, and tied her feet. When she regained consciousness, Y.M. was lying on the floor on her back. He cut her shorts and underwear with scissors, exposing her private parts, and he unzipped his pants. He put his fingers in her anus and his penis in her vagina. He said, "Since you didn't want to willingly, now you're gonna get fucked up." She screamed for her husband. She did not hear her children at this time.

Juarez tied Y.M. to something before leaving and coming back. She lapsed in and out of consciousness. He told her not to move too much or else she would get strangled. He put a handkerchief around her mouth, using gray tape; turned on the radio loud; and left. She lost consciousness. Eventually, she untied herself and left, leaving behind a tennis shoe and taking a knife to defend herself. She did not turn off the radio. She ran to Dorothy Parnell's home, located on the ranch. Dorothy let her inside and called 911 at 9:15 p.m.

Jack and his son Jacob Parnell testified about that day. In the late morning or the afternoon, Jack told Juarez to clean an area near a barn on the ranch, and Juarez seemed abrupt, which was out of character. Around 5:00 p.m., Jack saw Juarez driving the Martinezes’ car much faster than usual. Around 6:30 or 7:00 p.m., Jacob saw Y.M. and her children walking around the ranch.

Between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m., Jacob saw Juarez driving a tractor with a trailer. Also, sometime in the days or weeks before that day, Jack saw Juarez coming from a target range area on the ranch and carrying a small caliber rifle, which he had not seen him carry before.

c. The investigation

When law enforcement officers arrived at the Parnell Ranch, Y.M. was hysterical. She wore a long shirt that had blood on it, a bandanna around her neck, and beige underwear that Dorothy had given her. She had a sock and a tennis shoe on her left foot, and a sock and a cord tied around her ankle on her right foot. She had blue-green underwear, with its crotch area cut, wrapped around her waist. She had rope marks around her ankles, wrists, and throat, and duct tape in her hair and wrapped around her neck. Her face and lip were swollen, and she had dried blood in her mouth, blood coming out of her right ear, and abrasions, bruises, and discoloration around her eyes. That night, she repeated "Arturo bad" and described his attack.

Around 9:30 p.m., Deputy Mark Reed and Deputy Kurt Walker entered Juarez's trailer to look for him. He was not there. Deputy Reed located and seized a .22-caliber rifle and a .30-06 rifle. The .22-caliber rifle was loaded, and there was ammunition for the .30-06 rifle in the trailer. Around 11:45 p.m., Detective William Summers and Deputy Randy Owens entered Juarez's trailer in an effort to locate identifying information.

The following day, Y.M. returned to the Parnell Ranch and noticed, in front of the trailer, a piece of broken wood that had not been there the day before. That afternoon, Detective Desiree Carrington searched the trailer pursuant to a warrant. Outside the trailer, she saw a wooden stick, twine, a chair, an iced tea can, a beer can, a golf club, clear glass, duct tape, rope, a silver chain, a pair of green shorts with a brown belt, and three .22-caliber expended casings. In the screened porch, she found duct tape, a silver chain, a roll of plastic wrap inside an aluminum foil box, aluminum foil, and a pair of scissors. Inside the trailer, she saw twine, a black wallet or checkbook cover, a white tennis shoe, a roll of duct tape, boxes of ammunition, and a 12-pack of beer, among other items. There were boots under the bed, and inside them were three metal chains, a watch, and two wallets containing identification for José and Juan, $147 in American currency, and $80 in Mexican pesos. These items did not have dirt on them, and the clasps on the chains appeared undamaged.

A piece of duct tape containing strands of dark hair was found in the field. A criminalist testified that the hair could have come from A.M.’s head. From the location of the tape, deputies noticed a set of faint tire tracks leading toward some berry bushes. Following them with the assistance of search dogs, they came across a manmade opening in the bushes, with some sticks...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • People v. Silveria
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 13, 2020
  • People v. Dworak
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 15, 2021
    ...that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate sentence.’ " ( People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 190, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 471 P.3d 509, quoting People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1235, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 367 P.3d 649.) Though h......
  • People v. Poore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 27, 2022
    ...the death penalty even when objectively, in their judgment, the facts would warrant it. (See, e.g., People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 141, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 471 P.3d 509 ( Suarez ) [" ‘I am not sure if I could do this or not’ "]; People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 564–565, 263 C......
  • People v. Mataele
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 21, 2022
    ...and, immediately thereafter, a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage." ’ " ( People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 171, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 471 P.3d 509.) " ‘ " ‘The element of concealment is satisfied by a showing " ‘that a defendant's true intent and pu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Witness competence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...the court may appoint a “check” interpreter to prompt a party as to when an interpretation may be incorrect. People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal. 5th 116, 149, 267 Cal. Rptr. 418. The competency of an interpreter cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. People v. McNeal (1954) 123 Cal. App......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...2d 121, §19:110 Sturm, People v. (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1218, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 799, §§1:40, 19:140, 19:150, 19:160 Suarez, People v. (2020) 10 Cal. 5th 116, 267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 418, §§2:160, 6:60 Sublett v. Henry’s Turk and Taylor Lunch (1942) 21 Cal. 2d 273, 131 P. 2d 369, §1:200 Suezaki v. Supe......

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