Opinion
F074074
06-27-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUBEN ROCHA CASTRO, Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew H. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Jennifer Vanzant, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. BF154926A)
OPINION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge. Matthew H. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Jennifer Vanzant, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Ruben Rocha Castro appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and deliberation. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The victim, Andrea Russell, was a prostitute who lived at a motel in Bakersfield. On May 8, 2014, after Russell failed to pay her daily room fee and could not be located, motel employees reviewed footage from on-site surveillance cameras. Alarmed by what the videos revealed, they contacted the police.
Officers from the Bakersfield Police Department analyzed surveillance videos obtained from the motel and an adjacent business. The victim could be seen entering her room on May 7, 2014, shortly after 1:00 p.m. At approximately 2:00 p.m., a man driving a Chevrolet Suburban parked across the street and walked toward the motel. Minutes later, he entered the victim's room. At around 4:20 p.m., the man exited with a set of luggage, which he took out to the Suburban. He then retrieved a large box from his vehicle and returned to the room. At approximately 5:20 p.m., a second man parked near the Suburban, got out of his car, and went up to the victim's room. A short while later, both men exited with the aforementioned box. They carried the box across the street, loaded it into the Suburban, and returned to the motel. After carrying another load of the victim's belongings out of her room, they departed in their respective automobiles.
Detectives reviewed the victim's phone records to identify her most recent contacts. They discovered a series of exchanges between the victim and someone who had used a software application to anonymously send her text messages over the Internet. The communications were traced to a specific Internet Protocol, or IP, address, which led authorities to a residence where defendant lived with his girlfriend, their three-month-old son, and the girlfriend's children from a prior relationship. A Chevrolet Suburban was parked outside of the home.
On May 14, 2014, defendant was arrested and interrogated. Meanwhile, investigators searched his house and seized multiple cell phones, among other evidence. Defendant waived his right to remain silent and denied responsibility for the victim's disappearance. He claimed to have met the victim approximately four months earlier through the engagement of her professional services. He saw her twice within the span of a month, and a third time on May 7, 2014.
According to defendant's initial story, the victim had asked him to help her move. He provided conflicting details, first alleging she had called him for assistance and later claiming he had texted her about "going over there [and] having some fun." Following his arrival, she had said, "'Well[,] since you're here can you help me move?'" Defendant agreed and began transporting items to his Suburban while the victim left on an unspecified errand. He enlisted the help of his cousin, Daniel Norzagaray, Jr., to move the large box. When the victim failed to return, defendant went home and later donated her possessions to a charitable organization.
Investigators used forensic software to retrieve deleted text messages from defendant's phone. The messages showed he began contacting a friend on May 7, 2014, at 2:39 p.m. asking for help disposing of a body. The friend inquired, "'[H]ow did you get rid of her?'" Defendant replied, "'I choked her.'" A subsequent message read: "'I got her in the box help me get her out.'" The friend refused to get involved, so defendant contacted his cousin.
In between communicating with his friend and cousin, defendant photographed injuries to his ear and neck and transmitted the images to his girlfriend. In an accompanying text message, he told the girlfriend, "'My ear is bleeding. I just hit my head under the rail under the trailer of a truck.'" Scratches on defendant's neck and a "small laceration to the right ear" were still visible at the time of his arrest.
On May 15, 2014, defendant consented to a second custodial interrogation. After learning the police had seen his text messages, he gave a confession. In his revised version of the events, defendant had gone to the victim's motel room to collect a $200 debt. She allegedly owed him money for drugs, but he did not elaborate on the back story. As soon as he entered the room, she attempted to stab him with a knife. Defendant grabbed her hand, "got her to the ground," and then squeezed her neck while bearing down with his weight until she died. When asked how long he had strangled her, defendant replied, "Ten minutes." The interrogator repeated the answer to confirm his estimate, and defendant said, "I think so. Or I—I don't remember."
According to the record, defendant is approximately six feet two inches tall and weighed 320 pounds at the time of the incident. The victim was estimated to be four feet eleven inches tall and to have weighed approximately 139 pounds.
Defendant admitted staging the scene to make it look like the victim had moved out, and acknowledged having transported her to his vehicle in a box. He also revealed where he had dumped the body. Acting on this information, police located the victim inside of an abandoned house in a rural area. When found, her body was in the advanced stages of decomposition.
On October 28, 2014, defendant was charged with premeditated first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189). His cousin was charged with being an accessory (id., § 32), to which he pleaded no contest in exchange for a jail sentence. The case proceeded to trial in March 2016.
The People's trial evidence established the facts summarized above. In addition, expert testimony from forensic pathologist Robert Whitmore, M.D., addressed the cause of death. Dr. Whitmore's autopsy of the victim revealed, inter alia, multiple fractures of the cricoid cartilage ("a ring of cartilage that goes around the windpipe"), which indicated a significant amount of pressure had been applied to her neck. He determined the cause of death to be strangulation.
The defense expert, pathologist Marvin Pietruszka, M.D., opined the evidence was insufficient to support Dr. Whitmore's conclusion due to the absence of any pressure marks around the neck or evidence of hemorrhaging, such as petechiae. He explained: "[T]o have strangulation you need to meet certain criteria. In this case all we have is a fracture of a cricoid cartilage ... [a]nd you cannot make the diagnosis of strangulation without additional findings.... [¶] ... [¶] ... If you don't meet that criteria ... there's a high degree of uncertainty in making the diagnosis, and you should really avoid that diagnosis. The diagnosis may be something else." Dr. Pietruszka opined the victim could have suffered other forms of injury to the "vital structures" of her neck, which may have resulted in a very quick death, i.e., within seconds rather than minutes.
According to the testimony, petechiae "are small pinpoint-type hemorrhages, and they reflect breakage of small capillaries, tiny capillaries or obstruction of small capillaries."
On rebuttal, Dr. Whitmore testified strangulation can be diagnosed without evidence of hemorrhaging or bruising to the neck. He was dismissive of Dr. Pietruszka's criticism: "I already had enough to call a strangulation. [¶] ... [¶] ...I did not see the hemorrhaging in the neck. I also did not see petechiae for the same reason[:] Decomposition makes the petechiae go away."
Both experts agreed it takes several minutes to strangle someone to death. Strangulation refers to the application of pressure to the neck, which restricts the flow of blood to the brain and can cause unconsciousness within seconds. A person will regain consciousness once the flow of blood resumes, i.e., if the assailant removes the pressure to the neck. In order to kill someone, pressure around the neck must be maintained for approximately four to five minutes.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He was contrite, expressing regret for having killed the victim and also for his acts of infidelity. He acknowledged paying the victim for sex in January 2014, when his girlfriend would have been approximately eight months pregnant with his son, and again in February 2014, within days of the child's birth. Revising his earlier confession, defendant claimed to have contacted the victim again on May 7, 2014, for "a sexual favor," not to collect a debt.
Defendant characterized the victim's death as an "accident," resulting from an effort to defend himself against an unprovoked knife attack. He admitted strangling her, but only for approximately 20-30 seconds. When confronted with the time estimate he had given to police under interrogation, defendant stated, "I don't know why I said that. I mean, I—that's how long it felt, but it wasn't no ten minutes."
The jury returned a verdict of first degree murder. On July 1, 2016, defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. A notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
"'To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 118.)The standard of review is "highly deferential" to the jury's verdict. (People v. Lochtefeld (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 533, 538.) Even if the evidence is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, the appellate court cannot substitute its own conclusions for those of the trier of fact. (People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 132.) In other words, "reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)
Law and Analysis
"First degree murder, like second degree murder, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, but has the additional elements of willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation, which trigger a heightened penalty. [Citation.] That mental state is uniquely subjective and personal. It requires more than a showing of intent to kill; the killer must act deliberately, carefully weighing the considerations for and against a choice to kill before he or she completes the acts that caused the death." (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 166.)The issue on appeal concerns the jury's finding of premeditation and deliberation. Premeditation "encompasses the idea that a defendant thought about or considered the act beforehand." (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 443.) Deliberation "'"refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action."'" (Ibid.) "'Premeditation and deliberation can occur in a brief interval. "The test is not time, but reflection. 'Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.'"'" (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 849.)
Defendant's arguments rely on People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, which identifies three categories of evidence probative of deliberation and premeditation: proof of planning, motive, and the manner of killing. (Id. at pp. 26-27.) Contrary to defendant's assertion, the record contains evidence of all three criteria. Moreover, "[t]hese three categories are merely a framework for appellate review; they need not be present in some special combination or afforded special weight, nor are they exhaustive." (People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 173.)
Evidence concerning the box used to conceal and transport the victim's body suggested advance planning and preparation. The box was shown to have come from the purchase of a baby stroller on February 13, 2014. Astute jurors would have questioned why, nearly three months later, defendant was driving around with a box large enough to hold an adult human. Defendant used duct tape to seal the box after placing the victim inside of it, which he claimed to have fortuitously discovered inside of the motel room. Given his possession of these items at the crime scene, one could reasonably infer the excuse about helping the victim move and the means by which he would dispose of her body were preconceived.
In terms of motive, there was circumstantial evidence of a financial incentive. Defendant was unemployed and admittedly "broke" at the time of the murder. He was dependent on his girlfriend for monetary support, and she was carrying the financial burden of a five-person household on a social worker's salary. Therefore, it is conceivable he killed the victim in order to steal her money and valuables. According to the motel housekeeper, who was familiar with the victim's belongings, defendant made off with her cell phone, a laptop computer, an unknown quantity of marijuana, and whatever cash she had on hand.
Although proof of planning and motive was relatively meager, evidence regarding the mechanism of injury, i.e., strangulation, was alone sufficient to permit inferences of premeditation and deliberation. "This prolonged manner of taking a person's life, which requires an offender to apply constant force to the neck of the victim, affords ample time for the offender to consider the nature of his deadly act." (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1020 (Hovarter).) "Thus, where strangulation occurs over a prolonged period of time, a rational juror could find that the killer committed a premeditated and deliberate murder." (People v. Shamblin (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1, 11 (Shamblin) [expert testimony indicated manual strangulation of victim "could have taken anywhere from one to five minutes"]; accord, Hovarter, supra, at pp. 1019-1020 [sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation where defendant strangled victim for between five and eight minutes]; People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 510 (Davis) [same; defendant pursued an already injured victim "and then strangled her over a period of up to five minutes"].)
Defendant's attempt to factually distinguish cases such as Hovarter, Davis, and Shamblin is unavailing. These authorities stand for the proposition that deliberation and premeditation may be found where there is proof of death by strangulation coupled with evidence of adequate time for thought and reflection. (Shamblin, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 11; cf. People v. Rowland (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-9 [death by strangulation deemed insufficient to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation in absence of evidence regarding length of time it took to kill victim].) Here, expert testimony indicated defendant would have had approximately five minutes to reflect upon the deadly nature of his actions. Defendant himself estimated it had taken him 10 minutes to end the victim's life. He recanted that admission, but the jury was free to credit the initial time estimate and disregard his self-serving trial testimony. (E.g., People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403 ["it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends"]; People v. Langley (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 339, 348 ["[T]he trier of fact may reject a part of the testimony of a witness while believing other portions of his testimony."].)
In summary, "[a]n intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse." (People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 543.) Defendant admitted strangling the victim and killing her, and there was evidence this process took anywhere from five to 10 minutes. The length of time would have allowed for meaningful reflection and a deliberate choice to end the victim's life. We must therefore affirm the conviction of first degree murder.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
PEÑA, Acting P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
SMITH, J. /s/_________
ELLISON, J.
Retired judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------