People v. Valdez

Decision Date06 January 2004
Docket NumberNo. S026872.,S026872.
Citation82 P.3d 296,8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271,32 Cal.4th 73
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alfredo Reyes VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Marilee Marshall, Pasadena, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Sharlene Honnaka and Carl N. Henry, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MORENO, J.

A jury convicted defendant Alfredo Reyes Valdez of the first degree murder of Ernesto Macias (Pen.Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and of escape from custody (§ 4532, subd. (b)). The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and that defendant personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true that defendant had previously suffered three serious felony convictions. (§ 667, subd. (a).) After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal from the resulting judgment is automatic. (§ 1239.)

We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

At approximately 3:15 a.m. on Sunday, April 30, 1989, the body of Ernesto Macias was found lying on a curb a few houses from his home. He had been shot from close range multiple times in the head and upper body. One of the pockets of his pants was turned inside out, and bloodstains were discovered on the interior of that pocket. His jewelry was undisturbed and approximately $80 was found in his other pocket. Defendant was the last person seen with the victim.

A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence
a. The Crime

The victim lived in Pomona in a house he shared with his cousin Arturo Vasquez. Vasquez and his friend, Rigoberto Perez, spent the day — a Saturday — prior to the murder at the house drinking beer. Later that night, Gerardo Macias (Macias) arrived at the victim's house to pick up Perez, who was his cousin.2

Macias testified that upon entering the house, the victim, Perez, Vasquez, and defendant were in the small living room, which also functioned as the bedroom. The victim was lying on a mattress, covered with blankets, and had a Jennings .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun at his side. Perez was lying on a second mattress, with Vasquez sitting next to him. Defendant was standing near the front door. Awake and relaxing, the victim said he wanted to go to sleep because he was leaving early in the morning to catch a plane to Mexico to attend his sister's wedding. He said he was taking $3,000 with him. Defendant was present during this conversation.

Macias drank one or two beers after his arrival, and had been drinking beer earlier in the day as well. Approximately 10 minutes after Macias's arrival, at Vasquez's suggestion, Vasquez, Macias, and Perez drove to the nearby house of a friend, Andreas "Pato" Gutierrez to "party." As they were leaving the house, Macias heard the victim tell defendant in Spanish, using a "kind of mad" voice, to wait outside. Macias did not see defendant leave the house.

It took the three men approximately one minute to travel to Gutierrez's house. Finding that Gutierrez was preparing to go to sleep, they returned to the victim's house to drop off Vasquez. The round trip took approximately 10 minutes. Macias drove into the driveway of the victim's house and Vasquez got out of the car. Vasquez walked up to the front door, opened it, and noticed a lot of blood inside. He yelled "Hey, hey" and Perez got out of the car and joined Vasquez at the door. Visibly frightened, they ran back to the car and told Macias that they had seen "all kinds of blood." Because it was the victim's house, and the gun had been near the victim when the three men last saw him, they thought the victim might have shot defendant.

The three men proceeded to drive around the area looking for the victim and defendant. After quickly checking with the victim's cousin, who lived "down the street," Macias drove around the block a couple of times, and then noticed a bloody body lying on the curb a few houses away from the victim's house. Macias was unable to identify the body, but Vasquez recognized it as the victim. Macias drove around the block to a telephone booth, dialed 911, and reported the location of the body. He then drove Vasquez to Gutierrez's house, drove himself and Perez home, and did nothing further. He testified that he did not wait for the police because he was frightened and had outstanding arrest warrants.

b. The Crime Scene

Pomona Police Sergeant David Johnson entered the victim's house with two other officers and observed "blood everywhere." A broken trail of blood and bloody bare footprints led from the victim's front concrete porch to the victim's body. The victim was not wearing shoes and his feet were bloody. Detective Frank Terrio surmised that the victim left the bloody footprints when he walked out of his house bleeding to death. The victim's left pants pocket was turned inside out and there were bloodstains on the interior of the pocket. He was wearing jewelry and approximately $80 was found in his undisturbed, right pants pocket.

Detective Terrio also observed two different shoe prints made in blood on the concrete porch outside the victim's house. It was clear that the same shoe did not make both prints. One of the shoe prints was only a partial print of the mid-sole area, and therefore it could not be determined if it was made while the person was entering or leaving the house. This print was consistent with those made by Adidas jogging shoes or Nike walking shoes. The larger shoe print indicated that it was made while the person was leaving the house. Detective Terrio testified on cross-examination that the two shoe prints were consistent with two people leaving prints in blood. He also surmised that any officer at the scene could have left one of the prints, but noted that officers generally do not wear tennis shoes to crime scenes. A police work boot, however, exists that has a pattern similar to the one found on the porch.

Detectives searched the victim's house and discovered a Jennings .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun underneath the kitchen sink. They did not find a wallet, money, plane tickets, or a bank savings book.

One expended .22-caliber long rifle cartridge casing was found in the victim's house, along with one .22-caliber "Super X" long rifle cartridge and one .25-caliber cartridge. The Jennings .22-caliber handgun fires .22-caliber long rifle ammunition and holds a total of seven rounds.

c. The Investigation

The prosecution introduced evidence that on January 12, 1989, 1988 state and federal tax forms were prepared for the victim, requesting a federal tax refund of $1,203. On Friday, April 28, 1989, two days before the murder, a United States Treasury check for $1,203 payable to the victim was cashed at a Bank of America branch office in Pomona. Given the bank's policy requiring two forms of identification to cash a check, a bank manager opined that the victim cashed the check. A police check and credit fraud expert compared signatures on the victim's Department of Motor Vehicles handwriting exemplar with that on the Treasury check. The analysis was inconclusive, but similarities existed as to the signatures.

An autopsy revealed that the victim was shot four times. An entry wound just below the victim's left eye likely was fatal, and a wound below the right ear indicated that the victim had been shot from less than 18 inches away. It was possible that the victim sustained the injuries inside the house and collapsed some distance away.

Unrelated to the murder investigation, in the early morning hours of May 1, 1989, approximately 24 hours after the murder, Pomona Police Lieutenant Larry Todd was monitoring a group of individuals who were suspected of preying on people visiting certain convenience stores. He observed the group near a Monte Carlo automobile parked outside one of the targeted convenience stores. Intending to warn the occupants of the vehicle about the group, Lieutenant Todd drove up to the Monte Carlo. As he did this, the driver of the vehicle got out and walked to the front of the vehicle. Lieutenant Todd got out of his patrol vehicle and walked toward the driver. When he approached the driver's side door he spotted a small-caliber gun protruding from under the front seat of the car. He pulled out his weapon and ordered the driver and defendant, who was standing next to the passenger side door, to stand still.

Lieutenant Todd called for assistance and was joined by Officer Joseph Pallermino. Officer Pallermino seized the gun, a Jennings .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun, and a magazine containing bullets, from the driver's side interior of the car. The three bullets seized consisted of two "Super X" .22-caliber long rifle cartridges, and one "Federal" .22-caliber long rifle cartridge. Officer Pallermino also noticed dried blood on the grip of the gun. The defendant and the driver of the car, who was identified at trial only by the name of Morales, were arrested.3 When defendant was booked, he had $100 in cash on his person. It was stipulated that defendant was unemployed at the time.

Seven "Super X" .22-caliber long rifle cartridges, along with one "Federal" . 22-caliber long rifle cartridge, were subsequently found in the Monte Carlo.

Detective Terrio, who is a latent print expert, examined a bloody palm print that was detected on the left side of the grip of the Jennings .22-caliber handgun found in the Monte Carlo and compared it to defendant's palm print. In Detective Terrio's opinion, the latent palm print was made by defendant, and could only have been made when the blood was wet. On cross-examination, Detective Terrio stated that he could not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1403 cases
  • People v. Molano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2019
    ...is reviewable only if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct." ’ " ( People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 122, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296 ( Valdez ).)Seven months after McKenna's death, her sister, Dutoit, died as a result of respiratory failure following......
  • People v. Daveggio
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 26, 2018
    ...P.3d 528 ), or if an admonition would not have mitigated the harm caused by the misconduct ( ibid. ; see People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 125, 133, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296 ). " ‘[T]he absence of a request for a curative admonition’ " may likewise be excused if " ‘ "the court im......
  • Davis v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 22, 2019
    ...the jury construed or applied the prosecutor's comments in an objectionable manner. [Citations.]’ " ( People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 132–133 [8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296] ; People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1072 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40], overruled on another grou......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2017
    ...supporting a special circumstance allegation, or a charge of first degree felony murder. (See, e.g., People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 110–111, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 271, 82 P.3d 296 [when robbery is not a charged offense but rather forms the basis of a felony-murder charge and a robbery-murde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Ch. 6, §2.2.2(2) People v. Valdez, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1429, 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 628 (4th Dist. 2011)—Ch. 2, §2.1.1(2)(f) People v. Valdez, 32 Cal. 4th 73, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271, 82 P.3d 296 (2004)—Ch. 2, §11.1.1(1)(k) People v. Valdez, 58 Cal. App. 4th 494, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 135 (6th Dist. 1997)—......
  • Every juror wants a story: narrative relevance, third party guilt and the right to present a defense.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2007
    • June 22, 2007
    ...(255.) Id. at 492. (256.) Id. (257.) Id. at 492-93. (258.) Id. at 497. (259.) Id. at 497-98. (260.) Id. at 498. (261.) People v. Valdez, 82 P.3d 296, 306, 310 (Cal. (262.) Id. at 302. (263.) Id. (264.) Id. (265.) Id. at 302-03 (omission in original) (emphasis omitted). (266.) Id. at 303 (em......
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...33 Cal. 4th 780, 796, 94 P. 3d 513; People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal. CLOSING ARGUMENT §21:70 California Objections 21-8 4th 73, 134, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271; Smith v. Covell (1980) 100 Cal. App. 3d 947, 960, 161 Cal. Rptr. 377. Only facts adduced during trial or exhibits admitted into evidence m......
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...See People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 941. See "DNA tests," ch. 1, §4.13.1. • Fingerprint analysis. See People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 84. See "Fingerprint analysis," ch. 1, §4.13.2. • Shoeprint comparison. See People v. Taylor (1935) 4 Cal.2d 495, 497 (observing that, in most ......

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