State v. Pina, Docket No. 34192 (Idaho 7/8/2009)

Decision Date08 July 2009
Docket NumberDocket No. 34192.
PartiesSTATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN CARLOS FU ENTES PINA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

Appeal from the district court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.

Appellant's conviction is vacated and this case is remanded to the district court for a new trial.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Sara Thomas argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise for respondent. Ken Jorgensen argued.

W. JONES, Justice.


Appellant Juan Carlos Fuentes-Pina (Pina) appeals from his conviction of first degree felony murder following the shooting death of Jesse Naranjo by Johnny Shores. Pina raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the district court erred in applying the proximate cause rather than the agency theory of felony murder, 2) whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that Pina could be convicted of felony murder if "during the commission or attempted commission of the kidnapping, Jesse Naranjo was killed," and 3) whether the district court erred in denying Pina's mid-trial motion to proceed pro se. Because we agree that the district court incorrectly applied Idaho's felony murder rule and incorrectly instructed the jury, we vacate Pina's conviction.


On November 29, 2005, Jesse Naranjo (Naranjo) was shot by Johnny Shores (Shores) following a dispute between Naranjo and Pina. The argument between Pina and Naranjo first started outside of the house when Naranjo arrived. According to a witness, when Naranjo exited his car, the two men exchanged words before Pina put his hands in his pockets and followed Naranjo into the house, with Naranjo repeatedly looking back at Pina. The witness speculated Pina had a gun in his hand inside the pocket at this time. Once inside, Naranjo and Pina continued to argue and Pina motioned to the floor, making Naranjo get on his knees.

Shores and his girlfriend were asleep in a nearby room when they were awakened by the argument between Pina and Naranjo. When they opened the door to see what was happening they observed Pina standing in front of the kneeling Naranjo, holding a shotgun, and speaking in an angry tone. Shores walked around Naranjo and approached Pina. As the two spoke, Pina motioned at Naranjo and then at Shores' feet, after which Naranjo bent down and kissed Shores' foot. According to Shores, he "[n]udged [Naranjo] and told him to get up," and then told Pina to give him the gun. However, another witness testified that after Naranjo kissed Shores' feet, Shores "kicked [Naranjo] in the face . . . ." According to Shores, Pina responded to Shores' request for the gun by stating, "No. F____ this fool." Shores continued to encourage Pina to give him the gun and Pina finally relented.

As Pina handed the gun to Shores, Naranjo jumped off his knees and grabbed the gun. The three men wrestled for control and Shores ultimately seized the gun. Pina and Naranjo continued to fight. Naranjo ran to the back of the house and tried to get through the back door, but Pina slammed the door on him. Shores followed behind them and at some point fired the gun.

Shores later stated he was "scared and panicked and didn't know what to do, and [he] just fired the gun." He said he did not think he had intended to fire the gun: "I don't know. I don't think—it's just like a reaction. I don't know. I was just scared. It just happened . . . I wasn't aiming." He also said it was more of a "warning shot." Naranjo was shot on the left side of his abdomen, and bled to death. Shores pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter for the death of Naranjo.

A grand jury indicted Pina on the charge of "felony murder," with the indictment alleging he was liable for Naranjo's death because he:

[D]id wilfully [sic], unlawfully, and deliberately kidnap Jesse Naranjo by seizing and/or confining Jesse Naranjo with intent to cause him without authority of law to be kept and/or detained against his will and that during the course of that kidnapping, Jesse Naranjo, a human being, was unlawfully killed, to-wit: Jesse Naranjo was shot in the abdomen with a shotgun, from which he died, in violation of Idaho Code Section 18-4001, 18-4003(d).

Upon completion of the presentation of the State's case-in-chief, counsel for Pina moved, pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 29, for dismissal. Counsel asserted that the State had failed to present a prima facie case of felony murder because it presented no evidence indicating that the death resulted from any type of common plan or design between Pina and Shores. The State objected but acknowledged, "We don't assert that Mr. Shores was in on the plan, whatever there was, to kidnap, for whatever purposes, Mr. Naranjo at the time that Mr. Pina brought him into the house." Instead, the State asserted, "once Mr. Shores was activated, he was clearly not on the side of Jesse Naranjo. He was acting with Mr. Pina against Mr. Naranjo . . . ."

The district court denied the I.C.R. 29 motion, finding that "any killing committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a kidnapping is murder of the first degree. Now, the question for the jury is whether this killing did in fact occur during the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate the kidnapping." The court then adopted a "stream-of-events" theory of felony murder, finding that:

[T]he Idaho Code is very clear in that regard, and if the killing occurs, it does not, our statute does not require a killing to be by the person who initiated the kidnapping and indeed is silent as to that effect. I believe that silence leaves for this court to view this matter, not narrowly under the agency theory, but rather the decision for the jury whether the stream of events is such that this defendant should be held liable for the felony murder of Mr. Naranjo.

Defense counsel renewed the I.C.R. 29 motion during its case-in-chief, and the court again denied it, applying the "stream-of-events concept set forth previously and under the notion of felony murder in this case . . . ."

On the last day of the trial, as defense counsel conferred with Pina during the lunch hour, he took off his civilian clothing, demanded his jail clothing, and then refused to return to the courtroom. According to the deputy, Pina stated: "F____ you. I'm not going to court. Just give me my 3X jumpsuit, it's a mistrial, I want a new attorney." The court gave counsel the opportunity to meet again with Pina and "to tell him that the court is ordering him to appear." Counsel returned after a short time and stated, "I visited with Mr. Pina in the jail, along with [co-counsel]. Mr. Pina declined to speak to us. I advised him of the court's order, and he indicated that he did not want to come to court." Based upon his failure to return, the court found Pina had "purposely" waived his "right and obligation to be here."

The deputy then reentered the courtroom and stated to the court: "I've been informed by the jail that he will attend and come up only if he can grab his papers and represent himself at this point." The court took a recess to consider the issue and then made an initial statement that it believed it needed to conduct an inquiry under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The State then argued that the request for self-representation could be denied as having been untimely brought under State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 61 P.3d 632 (Ct. App. 2002). After considering that case, the district court agreed with the State and denied Pina's request because it was untimely. The deputy relayed this ruling to Pina and returned to the court to report:

I went down with the instruction that we would bring him back up, and I was informed by Sergeant Kinyon that, to inform him, that he would not be allowed to represent himself—represent himself. He was about halfway up the hall. He said, and I quote, "F____ you then, I ain't going." And I put—I asked him if he'd just step in holding five for a minute so I could inform you, and he said, "Fine," and he sits in there and refuses to go any further.

Thereafter, the trial commenced without Pina. No further witnesses were called, defense counsel rested and the State called no rebuttal witnesses. Following a recess, Pina returned to the courtroom for closing arguments.

At the jury instruction conference on June 29, 2006, defense counsel again renewed argument on the issue of insufficient evidence of agency and requested that the jury be instructed that Shores and Pina must have acted in concert with one another for Pina to be found guilty of felony murder. The district court declined to give the requested instructions on agency and instead gave the following instruction:

In order for the defendant to be guilty of Felony Murder in the First Degree, the state must prove each of the following:

1. On or about November 29, 2005,

2. in the State of Idaho,

3. the defendant Juan Carlos Fuentes-Pina, A.K.A. Juan Pina, A.K.A. Juan Carlos Pina, kidnapped, or attempted to kidnap Jesse Naranjo, and

4. during the commission or attempted commission of the kidnapping, Jesse Naranjo was killed.

If any of the above has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty. If each of the above has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.

Based on this instruction, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of first degree felony murder. Pina timely filed his appeal from the Judgment of Conviction.


Pina argues that he was denied due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, when he was convicted absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime of felony murder. In support of this proposition, he contends that Idaho...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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