People v. Waldron
Decision Date | 14 September 2017 |
Docket Number | F068691 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN KEITH WALDRON, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Hilary A. Chittick, Judge.
Michelle May Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, Daniel B. Bernstein, Ryan B. McCarroll, and Paul A. Bernardino, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo- Brian Keith Waldron (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and mutilation of human remains (Health & Saf. Code, § 7052, subd. (a); count 2). His motions for a new trial and to reduce count 1 to a lesser offense were denied, and he was sentenced to three years plus 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, we hold: (1) The trial court did not err by excluding evidence that defendant claims would have corroborated his account of his state of mind and bolstered his credibility; (2) Any error in excluding evidence that would have corrected misleading implications created by the prosecution's abridged version of certain evidence was harmless; (3) The trial court did not err by excluding evidence of certain of the victim's prior specific acts; (4) Defendant was not entitled to the victim's contemporaneous mental health records; (5) Admission of evidence of a specific prior act of defendant is not cause for reversal; and (6) Defendant is not entitled to reversal on a theory of cumulative prejudice. We affirm.
Between 8:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on a Friday in late October 2008, Ramona Castaneda was at her boyfriend's apartment on Fountain Way, when she walked to another location in the complex.1 Her path took her between the buildings running north to south. She heard very loud music coming from the apartment directly behind her boyfriend's apartment. The front door to that apartment was closed. She had never heard anything coming from that apartment before. When she walked back to her boyfriend's apartment about 15 to 20 minutes later, the loud music was still playing. She did not hear any voices either time. About 30 minutes after she returned to her boyfriend's apartment, she heard two thumps, a pause, and then two more thumps. The thumps were loud.Castaneda did not hear anything or any voices coming from the other apartment after she heard the thumps.
On the evening of October 27, Fresno Police Detective Yee was notified that an attorney and his client were at the police department and wanted to provide information regarding a homicide. Upon responding to the police station, Yee and his partner contacted defendant and his attorneys, David Mugridge and Mark King, and interviewed defendant.2
Defendant related that he lived in an apartment in the 4500 block of East Fountain Way, and worked as a paralegal and office manager for Mugridge. Sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. the previous Friday, he was sitting alone in his apartment when a Bulldog gang member walked inside. This person — subsequently identified as Jonathan Taylor (Taylor) — had been "bugging" defendant about a cigarette and then standing outside defendant's door. When Taylor "tried to jack [defendant] up," defendant killed him.
Defendant explained that Taylor, whom he did not know by name, had said he was the son of the woman who lived in the apartment south of defendant's residence. The woman (whose name defendant also did not know) had been living there for a few months. Someone had come around defendant's apartment two or three times before and asked defendant for a cigarette. Defendant thought Taylor was that person, but had not seen him in a couple of months. This time, Taylor had a large "B" tattooed on his cheek that defendant did not recall having seen before.
On Friday night, defendant was sitting in his apartment when Taylor came up to his door, which was open, and asked if defendant could loan him a cigarette.3 Defendantsaid no because he saw the "B" on Taylor's cheek. Mugridge's law office represented Bulldog gang members, and defendant believed Taylor was a Bulldog because of the large, scripted tattoo on his cheek.
Taylor stood outside, facing south and not looking into the apartment, but occasionally looking at defendant. This went on for five or 10 minutes, then defendant went outside and asked who Taylor was and what he was doing there. Taylor again asked for a cigarette and defendant again refused. Defendant did not recall telling Taylor to leave, but he explained to Taylor his feelings about the "terrorist Bulldog gang." Defendant was outside for a couple of minutes. Taylor tried to talk to defendant about something, but defendant did not follow what he said. Defendant stood looking up at the stars, and tried to make it obvious he was not interested in having Taylor around.
Finally, defendant went back inside and sat down. He was not sure how much time passed, but Taylor came in and sat down in defendant's recliner rocker. This made defendant feel "pretty upset." Although defendant's door was wide open, he had not invited Taylor in. Taylor did not say anything, but just sat in the chair, which was almost facing the door, and looked straight ahead. Defendant did not know what was going on, and was upset and scared that someone with a Bulldog tattoo on his face had just walked in and sat down.
Defendant asked Taylor what he was doing there. Taylor said to give him a cigarette, but defendant said no, and that he had told him no once. Both men continued tosit there for a while. Defendant, who had had several drinks, had his stereo on and was having a drink. He was concerned about what Taylor was doing there. Defendant was also a bit angry. At some point, he again asked Taylor what he was doing there, and Taylor said he wanted a cigarette or to give him a cigarette. Defendant said he was not going to give him one and to get out of there and leave him alone. He asked what Taylor was doing, coming into defendant's apartment and just making himself at home. Taylor did not leave.
At some point, defendant asked the meaning of the "B" on Taylor's face. Taylor said he was a member of the Bulldogs. When defendant asked if Taylor knew that was a criminal street gang, Taylor responded something like, yeah, so what. Defendant advised that if he was caught doing something, the gang enhancement could really hurt him, because he was a member of the gang. Taylor said something about doing home invasions, and defendant remembered thinking Taylor was acting like they were "homie[s]." Defendant was growing concerned, and wondered if Taylor felt he could just walk in and sit down because he had friends outside, although defendant did not see anyone.
Taylor reached into his pocket and pulled out a plastic bag with a bunch of pills in blister packs. He held one up like he was trying to read it, then lit a match and held it up. Defendant thought he was going to smoke the pill or something, but Taylor threw the match on the floor. He did this two or three times. Defendant was not sure if Taylor took any of the pills, but eventually Taylor put them back in his pocket. Defendant was pretty sure he said something to Taylor.
It was around this time that defendant shut and locked his front door. Although Taylor was still sitting in the chair, defendant was not sure if Taylor had friends outside who were going to come in and "pull some stuff" — possibly a home invasion — with defendant, who was "pretty drunk" by then. He also did not know if Taylor had a weapon.
Taylor continued to sit there. Defendant asked if he would leave if defendant gave him a cigarette. Defendant had been drinking corn whiskey. Although not "totally out of it," he was "way past legally drunk." Taylor said something about what defendant was drinking, then demanded that defendant give him some. Defendant did not know exactly how he responded, but he basically told Taylor no, and to get out of there and leave defendant alone. Defendant said that at least four or five times after Taylor came in. Defendant found the situation "bizarre" and thought Taylor "must be on something" or that there was something wrong with him.
After defendant locked the door, he went and stood in the area between the kitchen and where Taylor was sitting. Taylor got up, said he was going to get a drink, asked where it was at, and started walking toward defendant. Defendant said something like, "no you're not," and pushed Taylor. He did not push hard; he simply wanted to send the message that Taylor was not coming into defendant's kitchen. Taylor then pushed defendant up against the refrigerator. Defendant lost his balance a bit, but did not fall. Taylor grabbed a large, heavy, metal Maglite-type flashlight from defendant's computer desk. He swung it at defendant, but defendant had regained his balance by then and Taylor missed. They struggled and defendant got the flashlight away from Taylor, whom he estimated was about five feet 10 inches tall and weighed "a couple hundred" pounds. Defendant struck Taylor in the head with the flashlight. Although the blow caused Taylor to start bleeding, it did not otherwise seem to affect him.
Defendant could not recall whether he hit Taylor in the head again or swung at him, but somehow Taylor ended up face down in back of the rocker recliner. Defendant "jumped over there" and tried to put as much weight on Taylor's back as he...
To continue reading
Request your trial