State v. Ruiz
Decision Date | 12 September 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 29645–8–III.,29645–8–III. |
Citation | 176 Wash.App. 623,309 P.3d 700 |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Vicente RUIZ, aka Vicente Mendez, Appellant. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Eric J. Nielsen, Casey Grannis, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
Shawn P. Sant, Franklin County Prosecutor's Office, Frank William Jenny II, Attorney at Law, Pasco, WA, for Respondent.
[176 Wash.App. 627]¶ 1 Five men were murdered in a Pasco garage in 1987 by two gunmen. One of the gunmen pleaded guilty and testified under oath at his plea hearing about how he and his cousin, appellant Vicente Ruiz,1 committed the massacre. When Mr. Ruiz was apprehended and tried in 2010, his cousin refused to answer when questioned by the prosecutor consistent with his previous testimony. The primary contention in this appeal is whether the prosecutor erred in questioning the recalcitrant witness despite his refusal to answer. We conclude that this was permissible and affirm the convictions for five counts of aggravated 2 first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder.
¶ 2 The sole survivor of the shootings was Aldo Montes–Llamas 3 who was working with the other five men inside Medina's Body Shop on the evening of October 13, 1987. About 6:45 p.m., he saw two men arrive in a Mazda RX–7. The two men had contact outside the building with two mechanics; the mechanics then departed and the two men entered the shop. One of them was holding a .357 handgun in one hand and what appeared to be a .38 pistol in the other. The second man carried a chrome Mini 14 rifle. They rounded up the body shop workers and started shooting.
¶ 3 Mr. Montes–Llama dived under a car; a ricocheting bullet struck him in the abdomen. When the shooting ended, the two men went to their car and left; Mr. Montes–Llama drove himself to a police station and reported the shootings. An ambulance took him to the hospital while law enforcement descended upon the body shop.
¶ 4 Detective Henry Montelongo spoke to Montes–Llama at the hospital. He told the detective that the men were “Calentones” and mentioned the name “Vicente.” The detectiveknew the Calentones as a branch of the Mendez family in Pasco. Meanwhile, the body shop owner, Clifford Medina, named Vicente Mendez (Ruiz) as a possible suspect and told them Mendez was associated with a blue Camaro. Police began searching for a blue Camaro or RX–7.
¶ 5 A dark gray RX–7 was located at a Pasco apartment early in the morning of October 14. The apartment manager identified Vicente Ruiz as a renter of one of the apartments, but indicated he also lived at an apartment in Kennewick. A search warrant was served on the Pasco apartment and the RX–7. There was no one in the apartment, but police found male clothing, 22 bags of marijuana, and a single round of .223 ammunition. In the Mazda police found a receipt from Phil's Sporting Goods for .223 rifle ammunition purchased less than an hour before the shooting at the body shop. A fingerprint on a window belonged to Vicente Ruiz. A straw hat with a dark band and a bag of Oberto beef jerky were recovered from the Mazda. A convenience store manager later turned over a video showing two Hispanic teen males, one of whom was wearing a straw hat with a dark band, in her store purchasing Oberto beef jerky on the afternoon of the 13th.
¶ 6 Police showed Mr. Montes–Llama a photomontage; without hesitation he picked out Vicente Ruiz as one of the shooters. He identified Pedro Mendez–Reyna as the other shooter from a second montage. One of the mechanics also identified Ruiz in the photomontage, although at trial he did not recall doing so. The owner of the RX–7 told Detective Montelongo that he had allowed Vicente Ruiz 4 to test drive the car on the afternoon of the shooting; Ruiz had loaned him a Toronado to use during the test drive.
¶ 7 The identified Kennewick apartment belonged to Ruiz's girl friend, Diana Garcia. She was pregnant with the couple's second child. A search of her apartment turned up documents 5 linked to Mr. Ruiz and an empty .38 caliber ammunition box. Garcia told police that Ruiz and Mendez–Reyna stopped at the apartment shortly after 7:00 p.m. on October 13. After that visit she had no contact with Ruiz until his arrest in 2007.
¶ 8 Forensic evidence showed that 14 shell casings recovered at the crime scene were Winchester .223 rounds fired from the same weapon. The other bullet fragments recovered at the scene came from either a .38 or a .357 magnum.
¶ 9 Pedro Mendez–Reyna was arrested in Texas in 1993. He was charged with five counts of aggravated first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. In exchange for a guilty plea to the charged counts, the prosecutor agreed to forego the death penalty, Mr. Mendez–Reyna also testified extensively under oath at the plea hearing. His testimony on examination by his attorney detailed the killings and the actions of both he and Mr. Ruiz. The plea agreement did not require that Mendez–Reyna testify against Ruiz.
¶ 10 Mr. Ruiz was arrested in Mexico in 2007 and extradited to the United States. He told Detective Montelongo that he and his brothers had left Pasco in 1987 for a preplanned vacation in Mexico. At trial, the defense indicated that Mr. Ruiz had returned to Mexico to attend his sister's Quincenanera (15th birthday celebration).
¶ 11 Trial attempts in 2008 and 2010 ended in mistrials. The first mistrial was declared after the court granted a defense request for a continuance during jury selection in order to conduct deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. The second mistrial occurred after additional evidence was provided during trial testimony and the defense was granted additional time to investigate. Venue was changed to Spokane County for a third trial that commenced in November 2010.
¶ 12 Both parties listed Mr. Mendez–Reyna as a witness. During the second trial, the defense sought to prevent the State from calling Mendez–Reyna, arguing that he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. After the court denied that motion, the defense sought to limit questioning if Mr. Mendez–Reyna continued to assert the privilege despite the court's ruling. The parties extensively briefed and argued the issue. The trial judge concluded that the State would be permitted to ask its questions even if the witness refused to answer. The defense was given a standing objection to “any and all questions” asked of Mendez–Reyna. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 2619.
¶ 13 The prosecution called Mr. Mendez–Reyna to testify. After the witness confirmed his name, the first substantive question the prosecutor asked was: “Referring to the defendanthere in court today, second man from the wall; is that gentleman your first cousin?” Mr. Mendez–Reyna answered, RP at 2627 (emphasis added). The prosecutor then asked a series of additional leading questions and Mr. Mendez–Reyna gave an identical response each time, stating “I plead the Fifth.” Each time, the court ordered him to answer the question and he refused. The following are the questions the prosecutor asked:
*Is the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, who is here in the courtroom today, is he your first cousin?
*Was your father and his mother brother and sister?
*I want to take you back to October 13, 1987. On that date were you residing in Seattle, Washington?
*On October 13th, 1987 were you visiting in Pasco, Washington?
*All right. Mr. Mendez–Reyna, on October 13th, 1987, did you have contact with the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, who you see here in the courtroom today in the City of Pasco, Washington?
*Did the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, ask your assistance in confronting six individuals with whom he had had a problem earlier in the day?
*Did you accompany the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, to a business called Phil's Sporting Goods in Pasco, Washington?
*Did you see ammunition being purchased at Phil's Sporting Goods for a Mini 14 rifle?
*After leaving Phil's Sporting Goods, did you get back into a motor vehicle with the defendant?
*Did you see that there were three firearms in the motor vehicle, a Mini 14 rifle, a .357 Magnum handgun and a .38 special handgun?
*After leaving Phil's Sporting Goods, did you and the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, proceed to Javier's Seafood Restaurant to look for the individuals?
*After not finding the individuals there, did you then go to Medina's Body Shop in Pasco, Washington?
*Did you encounter two individuals outside Medina's Body Shop who appeared to be mechanics?
*After the two mechanics had left, did you and the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, that you see here in the courtroom today, enter Medina's Body Shop carrying guns?
*Was the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, carrying two handguns and were you carrying the Mini 14 rifle?
*Once you were in the body shop, were all six individuals present rounded up and placed into one room?
*Did some argument ensue at that point?
*Did you see the defendant, Vicente Ruiz, open fire with the handguns he had in his possession?
*Did you also open fire with the Mini 14 rifle?
*Did you see individuals fall to the ground?
*Did you see any of the individuals in the body shop with firearms?
*Did all of the individuals fall to the ground as far as you could see?
*Did any of them appear to be moving?
*Did you check the individuals to see if they were still alive?
*Is it not correct none of the individuals, none of the individuals in the body shop, beside yourself and the defendant, had firearms that you could see?
*Did you then leave the body shop without checking the individuals?
*After leaving Medina's Body Shop on October 13, did you and the defendant, VicenteRuiz, go first to Reno, Nevada, then to Los Angeles and then to Mexico?
*All right, Mr. Mendez–Reyna, take a look at the individual in the courtroom today, second man from the right, your cousin, Vicente Ruiz, was that the man who was with you on October 13th, 1987, and along...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Meza
...testimony about said crime." Reina v. United States, 364 U.S. 507, 513, 81 S. Ct. 260, 5 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1960) ; State v. Ruiz, 176 Wash. App. 623, 636, 309 P.3d 700 (2013). The law is less clear on the effect of a postconviction collateral attack such as a PRP.¶19 Relying in part on Ruiz, M......
-
In re Quintero
...argument on the motion to the court. In its memorandum in support of the motion for reconsideration, the State cited State v. Ruiz , 176 Wash. App. 623, 309 P.3d 700 (2013), for the proposition that Jose Lozano had no valid privilege and could be compelled to testify. Defense counsel argued......
-
State v. Lazcano
...tactics constituted trial by innuendo. A criminal defendant must only be convicted by evidence, not innuendo. State v. Ruiz, 176 Wn. App. 623, 641, 309 P.3d 700 (2013). When a prosecutor's questions refer to extrinsic evidence never introduced, deciding if the questions are inappropriate re......
-
State v. Lazcano
... ... questions elicited testimony similar to that the trial court ... excluded and that the prosecution's tactics constituted ... trial by innuendo ... A ... criminal defendant must only be convicted by evidence, not ... innuendo. State v. Ruiz, 176 Wn.App. 623, 641, 309 ... P.3d 700 (2013). When a prosecutor's questions refer to ... extrinsic evidence never introduced, deciding if the ... questions are inappropriate requires examining whether the ... focus of the questioning imparts evidence within the ... ...
-
Questions that assume unproven facts
...v. State , 708 A.2d 1126, 121 Md.App. 263 (1998). Questions that assume facts not in evidence are objectionable. State v. Ruiz , 176 Wash.App. 623, 309 P.3d 700 (2013). It was error for a prosecutor to question a witness in a manner that suggested that evidence existed outside of the record......
-
Questions That Assume Unproven Facts
...v. State , 708 A.2d 1126, 121 Md.App. 263 (1998). Questions that assume facts not in evidence are objectionable. State v. Ruiz , 176 Wash.App. 623, 309 P.3d 700 (2013). It was error for a prosecutor to question a witness in a manner that suggested that evidence existed outside of the record......
-
Overview
...v. Snead , 783 S.E.2d 733, 368 N.C. 811 (2016); State v. Pierre , 170 So.3d 348 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 2015); State v. Ruiz , 176 Wash.App. 623, 309 P.3d 700 (2013); State v. Mahuka , 130 Hawai’i 305, 309 P.3d 973 (2013). Ellison v. State , 373 Mont. 159, 315 P.3d 950 (2013); Divers......
-
Table of Cases
...State v. Rouselle, 559 A.2d 779 (Me. 1989), §7.300 State v. Ruggles, 167 P.3d 471, 214 Or.App. 612 (2007), §21.406 State v. Ruiz , 176 Wash.App. 623, 309 P.3d 700 (2013), Overview, §4.300 State v. Rupp, 614 So.2d 1323 (La. App.3 Cir. 1993), §9.504.1 State v. Sanchez, 815 A.2d 242, 75 Conn.A......