People v. Thomas

Decision Date03 February 2011
Docket NumberNo. S093456.,S093456.
Citation2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1966,51 Cal.4th 449,121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521,11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1656,247 P.3d 886
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Alex Dale THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Robert Derham, San Anselmo, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Alice B. Lustre and Sharon E. Loughner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.MORENO, J.

[247 P.3d 893 , 51 Cal.4th 455]

Defendant Alex Dale Thomas, a substitute janitor at Rio Linda High School, raped and murdered 18–year–old student Michelle Montoya. Defense counsel did not contest that defendant killed the victim, but denied that he raped her, suggesting defendant had engaged in consensual sex with the victim, then killed her in a panic because he believed he had committed statutory rape and, as a convicted felon, could be sent to prison for life under the Three Strikes law. Defendant was convicted of murder with the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of rape, and was sentenced to death. This appeal is automatic. (pen.code, § 1239, subd. (b).) 1 for the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS

An information filed on November 21, 1997 in Sacramento County Superior Court charged defendant with murdering Michelle Montoya on May 16, 1997 (§ 187, subd. (a)), with the special circumstance that the murder was committed during commission of the crime of rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)), and with raping the victim (§ 261). The information further alleged that defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in committing the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)) and that both the murder and the rape were serious felonies (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)). The information alleged that defendant had suffered eight prior convictions, including convictions for the serious felonies of voluntary manslaughter, robbery, and exploding a destructive device with intent to injure.

The trial court denied defendant's motion for a change of venue and the Court of Appeal summarily denied defendant's petition for writ of mandate. We stayed the trial and granted review on August 18, 1999, and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal with directions to issue an alternative writ of mandate. On March 17, 2000, counsel stipulated to a change of venue to Sonoma County. On July 5, 2000, jury trial commenced in Sonoma County Superior Court.

A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution's Case

The victim, Michelle Montoya, was a senior at Rio Linda High School who had just turned 18 years old. On Friday, May 16, 1997, she stayed after school to meet with her English teacher about a research paper she was writing. She mentioned that she needed to make a telephone call to arrange for a ride home, but declined her teacher's offer to use her cell phone. The victim left the meeting about 3:30 p.m.

The victim telephoned her stepfather, Joseph Schleeter, sometime between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m. to ask for a ride home. Schleeter told her that it would be 10 or 15 minutes before he could come; she replied she would find her own ride home and hung up. Schleeter later drove to the victim's school and waited for her, but left when she did not appear.

A few minutes before 3:00 p.m., Robert Erickson had locked the doors to his shop classroom, room L–1. In Erickson's office adjoining the shop classroom, there was a telephone that he sometimes let students use to arrange rides.

Defendant was working as a substitute janitor that day and was assigned to clean shop classroom L–1. About 4:00 p.m., janitor Robert Simpkins was walking with fellow janitor Faruq Shirley when they heard a loud sound, like a door slam. They went to investigate and saw defendant leaving a bathroom near the shop classroom. Simpkins noticed that defendant no longer was wearing the shirt that he had worn over his tank top at the beginning of the shift.

Simpkins left to resume cleaning, and defendant called Shirley over and asked him for a cigarette. Shirley said he did not smoke and began to leave, but defendant asked Shirley to accompany him to the ROTC classroom and show him how it should be cleaned. Shirley was surprised by the request, because defendant had cleaned the ROTC room the previous day, but he briefly went to the room with defendant and described what should be done. Shirley then left, but a short time later, defendant yelled and ran to him, saying there was something he had to see. Defendant ran to shop classroom L–1 with Shirley following. They entered the room and Shirley saw the victim lying on the floor. Shirley ran out of the room to find Simpkins, with defendant following him.

Shirley and defendant ran up to Simpkins and told him they had found someone who had been hurt in the shop classroom. Simpkins used his walkie-talkie to contact the office and have someone call 911. Simpkins entered the shop and found the victim lying facedown.

Officer Ruben del Hoyo of the Grant School District Police Department arrived about 10 minutes later. He entered the shop classroom and saw the victim lying on the floor with a puddle of blood around her head. She was fully clothed and wearing a backpack. He determined that she did not appear to be breathing, and left the room just as other emergency personnel were arriving. Officer del Hoyo spoke to defendant, who appeared “very nervous” and was “sweating excessively from his forehead.” Defendant said he had found the victim and turned her over, then ran to get help when he saw that she was dead.

Paramedics arrived at 4:12 p.m. The victim was not breathing and had no pulse. She was lying facedown on her backpack, which was twisted around in front of her. She had large wounds on her forehead and the back of her head, and her throat had been cut. The victim was pronounced dead in the ambulance while being transported to the hospital.

Deputy Sheriff Michael Abbott and his partner Deputy Sheriff Ken Harbuck arrived at the crime scene at 4:15 p.m. Deputy Abbott approached defendant and told him he wanted to talk to him about the incident. Defendant replied: “I'm convicted and I won't go to court about this.” Defendant said that he had entered the shop classroom to empty the trash can and discovered the victim's body. He touched her shoulder and then wiped his hand on his shirt, which was in his back pocket. When the victim did not move, he ran to get help. Defendant pointed out some blood on his pants, which he said had gotten on him when he slipped while running out of the classroom. Deputy Abbott asked defendant whether there were any weapons in the classroom. Defendant laughed and said, “The whole room is full of weapons.” Another deputy collected defendant's shoes, as well as his shirt from his back pocket. Defendant had a scratch on his hand.

Criminalist Faye Springer examined the crime scene and found a used tampon in a paper cup with resin in the bottom, sitting on top of a work counter. No semen was found on this tampon. A crowbar found at the scene had been wiped down but still had blood on it. A trail of defendant's bloody shoe prints led from the victim's body to the tool cabinet where the crowbar was found. A tiny paint chip recovered from a blood spot on defendant's clothing matched a sample of paint from the crowbar.

An autopsy revealed that the cause of the victim's death was blunt force trauma to the head, consistent with a blow from a crowbar. “ Basically the skull was just shattered.” There was a vertical laceration above the left eyebrow that extended down to bone and was “associated with an underlying fracture of the skull.” A second horizontal laceration on the left temple extended down to bone. The largest laceration “extended from the mid-occipital region of the head to involve the ear” and was “associated with a fracture and through that fracture the brain was actually visible.” In addition to a black eye and wounds to her hands, arms, legs, and feet, the victim had two cuts on her neck and had been stabbed in the back three times.

There were no signs of sexual trauma. The victim was wearing a tampon and a Maxi-pad. The Maxi-pad was blood-soaked, but not the tampon. DNA analysis of semen found on this tampon matched defendant. A DNA analysis of blood taken from the crowbar matched the victim, and fragments of the victim's tissue were recovered from defendant's pants.

An expert in analyzing bloodstain patterns testified that the pant legs below the knee of the jeans defendant had been wearing on the day of the murder revealed both “high velocity blood splatter,” which indicated defendant had been within a foot or two of the victim when she suffered a blow of force greater than a normal blow from a fist, as well as “medium velocity splatter,” which was “consistent with a bludgeoning or beating.” The expert also examined the undershorts defendant had been wearing and found “transfer type” bloodstains that were consistent with blood being deposited on the shorts from a source such as bloody fingers. Fibers recovered from the inside of defendant's undershorts were consistent with fibers from the victim's underpants, her skirt, and her Maxi-pad.

2. Defense Case

In his opening statement, defense counsel conceded that defendant had engaged in sex with the victim, but claimed it had been consensual and suggested defendant then killed the victim because he feared that he had committed statutory rape and, if convicted, would receive a life sentence under the Three Strikes law.

Sherry Arndt, a registered nurse who specialized in examining victims of sexual assault, testified that the victim displayed “no visible injuries that are consistent with forced sexual contact.”

A woodshop teacher who had been present at the high school until about 3:45 p.m. on the day of the murder testified he did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
352 cases
  • People v. Douglas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 2018
    ...sufficiency of a prosecutor's justifications for exercising peremptory challenges with restraint. (See People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 474, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 247 P.3d 886.) The trial court's determination is a factual one, and so long as the trial court makes a sincere and reason......
  • People v. Fayed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 2020
    ...prosecution did not mischaracterize the facts but made reasonable inferences based on the record. (See People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 494-495, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 247 P.3d 886.) The prosecution stated that defendant and Pamela "knew exactly what was going on as early as May of 200......
  • People v. Delgado
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2017
    ...145 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 282 P.3d 173 [defendant twice wrestled with other inmates and threw punches]; People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 504-505, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 247 P.3d 886 (Thomas ) [defendant sucked on a woman's neck without permission, leaving a bruise]; People v. Hamilton (2009......
  • People v. Reed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 7, 2018
    ...No. 8.85. Reed has not demonstrated why we should overturn settled law on the question. (See, e.g., People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 505, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 247 P.3d 886 [" ‘[T]he jury is capable of deciding for itself which factors are "applicable" in a particular case.’ "], quoti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...the court must offer guidance in its instructions as to how any failure might affect the jury’s deliberations. People v. Thomas (2010) 51 Cal. 4th 449, 483, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521. Instructing the jurors that the weight and significance of any delayed disclosure are matters for their conside......
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...See Hill v. NCAA (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 12-13. See "Drug tests," ch. 1, §4.13.8. • Blood-spatter analysis. See People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 458. See "Blood-spatter analysis," ch. 1, §4.13.9(1). (l) The aspects of criminal behavior, including the typical methods of committing crimes.......
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...that preliminary hearing was held as part of a different criminal proceeding, several years earlier. See, e.g., People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 503 (admitting preliminary-hearing testimony from prior conviction taken 15 years earlier to prove aggravation at penalty phase). (3) Pretr......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, §21:40 Thomas, People v. (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 771, 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 533, §§2:100, 16:90 Thomas, People v. (2010) 51 Cal. 4th 449, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521, §§2:190, 9:170, 14:50 Thomas, People v. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 489, 7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199, §§13:30, 21:70, 21:100, 21:120 T......
  • 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