Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA053583. Richard H. Kirschner, Judge.
Marilyn G. Burkhardt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback II and Sonya Roth, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHAVEZ, J.
Defendant and appellant Mark Allan Steffen (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree murder, in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). He was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison and was accorded 819 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 712 days of actual time and 107 days of good time/work time. Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Substantial evidence supports the murder conviction, and we therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
1. Prosecution Evidence
Defendant and the victim, Dina Canale (Canale), were involved in a sexual relationship and lived together in defendant’s home from March or April of 2006 until August 11, 2006, the date on which Canale was last seen alive. Defendant’s neighbor and employer, Jon Anderson (Anderson), had introduced Canale and defendant to one another. Anderson had known Canale for six or seven years, had previously been involved in a sexual relationship with her, and considered her a friend. Defendant worked for Anderson, who was in the business of repossessing cars, and Anderson parked the repossessed cars on defendant’s property. Anderson’s daughter, Joneesha Anderson, rented a room from defendant and lived in defendant’s home between June and August 2006. Anderson stopped by the home on a daily basis to look in on his daughter. Defendant’s brother, David Steffen (David), also lived in defendant’s house from Monday through Friday during the summer of 2006.
Canale had a longstanding problem with alcohol and also used medications such as Paxil, Vicodin, and Xanax. She would stop drinking for a month or two and would then binge on alcohol for three or four days, get sick, and undergo detoxification at a hospital for three or four days before returning home. During her alcoholic binges, Canale would disappear for three or four days at a time and would then call either her mother or Anderson for a ride home from the hospital after undergoing detoxification.
After Canale moved into defendant’s home, Anderson noticed bruises or injuries on her at times. On one occasion, approximately a week and a half before Canale disappeared, Anderson found blood inside a car he had loaned to defendant. He went to defendant’s house to ask about the blood and saw Canale with a black eye and a bruised and battered face. Defendant told Anderson that he had caught Canale in bed with a man named Arturo, and that defendant had driven Canale to Topanga and beat her up. He then drove past Arturo’s house and forced Canale to fire a rifle at the house. Canale confirmed that defendant had beaten her up in Anderson’s car. Anderson warned Canale to move out because “he might hurt you one day, and you’re going to be knocked out.” In response, Canale said she had nowhere to go.
Defendant’s brother, David, also overheard arguments between defendant and Canale and observed injuries on Canale. On one occasion, David saw Canale with a black eye, and defendant told David he “saw red” and hit her. On another occasion, David saw defendant take Canale out the front door. When they returned, defendant was carrying what appeared to be a rifle wrapped in a blanket, and Canale was cowering by the front door with a bloody and swollen face. Anderson’s daughter, Joneesha, overheard an argument in defendant’s room in late July 2006 and saw Canale with two black eyes the following day. Defendant told Joneesha he had caught Canale in bed with Arturo.
Canale had three children from a previous marriage. She did not have custody of the children but saw them occasionally. A visit with the children had been scheduled for August 11, 2006. It was Canale’s son’s birthday, and Canale and defendant planned to take the children to the park that day. Canale’s sister, Rosaria Canale (Rosaria), dropped the children off at defendant’s house that morning. She rang the doorbell, hugged Canale, and spoke with her briefly. After determining that Canale was sober, Rosaria felt comfortable leaving the children with her, and left.
Rosaria returned to defendant’s home at approximately 6:00 p.m. on August 11, 2006 to collect the children. She rang the doorbell and spoke with Canale, who appeared to be sober. The children were happy and excited after spending the day with their mother. Anderson spoke with defendant that evening and defendant said the visit with Canale’s children had gone well.
The following morning, August 12, 2006, Anderson returned to defendant’s home and saw defendant but not Canale. Anderson inquired after Canale, and defendant responded “She’s cool. She’s fine.” Anderson saw defendant again that evening. Defendant was agitated and told Anderson that Canale was gone. Anderson observed blood on defendant’s arm and asked him, “Man, what’s that on your arm?” Defendant replied, “Oh, I slammed the door on her.” Anderson assumed defendant and Canale had an altercation and that Canale had left.
Approximately five days later, Anderson received a telephone call from Canale’s mother asking about Canale. She said she had been calling defendant’s home, but that no one answered the phone. Anderson told Canale’s mother that he would tell defendant to call her. When Anderson relayed that message to defendant, he asked defendant where Canale had gone. Defendant said that she may have gone to Mexico.
Canale’s mother telephoned Anderson several more times in the ensuing weeks and told Anderson that defendant was not answering the telephone. She finally decided to contact the police. On September 4, 2006, two officers from the Los Angeles Police Department visited defendant’s home for the purpose of conducting a welfare check on Canale. The officers spoke with defendant, performed a cursory search of the house, and found nothing that suggested foul play. One or two days after the police conducted a welfare check on Canale, Anderson saw defendant with a duffle bag and a taxicab waiting outside. Defendant said he was traveling to Washington and would return within a week.
Before defendant departed for Washington, Anderson began to notice a bad odor emanating from a shed in defendant’s back yard. The shed was secured by locks and chains. Anderson mentioned the odor to defendant, who attributed the odor to a dead opossum or cat.
On September 21, 2006, Anderson received a telephone call from David, who was at defendant’s house looking for him. Anderson told David that defendant was in Washington but said that he wanted to speak to David. Anderson met David at defendant’s house and told him about the bad odor coming from the shed. David went to look at the shed, which in the past had been unlocked and readily accessible, and found it chained, nailed, and locked shut, with tires and debris stacked in front of the door. He asked Anderson why the shed was locked, and Anderson replied that he did not know but would telephone defendant to ask him about it. While Anderson was calling defendant, David pried open the door and entered the shed. Once inside, he noticed that the odor was much stronger. David also saw a large cardboard box wrapped in plastic with liquid and cat litter inside, and cat litter spread on the floor around it. When Anderson reached defendant by telephone, defendant was angry that David had opened the shed. He told Anderson and David to stay out of the shed because it was rented to someone whose things were stored inside. After speaking with defendant, Anderson and David decided to call the police.
Detective Gregory Crowe of the Los Angeles Police Department was one of the officers who responded to the call. He entered the shed and observed several boxes stacked on top of each other and covered with a large white tarp. A large quantity of cat litter had been spread on the concrete floor, which was also covered with what Crowe believed to be biological fluid. One of the boxes was tightly wrapped in clear plastic cellophane wrap, and two empty boxes of cellophane wrap lay on the floor. Human remains, including a skull, jaw, and teeth, were inside the wrapped box. A fingerprint expert subsequently identified the remains as Canale’s.
After finding Canales’s body, police officers searched defendant’s house and recovered a rifle with bloodstains on it. Subsequent forensic and DNA testing showed that the blood on the rifle stock was a 99.82 percent match with that of Canales’s mother and a probable match with Canale’s.
Dr. Jeffrey Gutstadt of the Los Angeles County Coroner’s office performed an autopsy on the remains found in defendant’s shed. Because the body was extensively decomposed, with most soft tissue and internal organs missing, Gutstadt was unable to determine the cause of death. A toxicological examination revealed that Canale had ingested cocaine within days or hours of her death, but Gutstadt could not determine the exact date or amount. The toxicological examination found no alcohol in Canale’s remains. Substantial decomposition of the body prevented Gutstadt from determining a time of death more specific than a period of weeks.
Defendant was arrested in Washington in early October 2007. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant spoke with Los Angeles Police Detective Steve Park (Park). Defendant told Park that Canale was his fiancée, and that the last time he saw her she had left the house to get some wine. She had left a note saying “I’m going out for a walk” but never returned. Defendant said he did not file a missing person report because he felt it was Canale’s family’s responsibility to do so. When asked whether there was any domestic violence in the relationship, defendant admitted beating Canale in Anderson’s car on one occasion. He said that some of Canale’s blood got on a rifle that he had in the car at the time. Defendant also admitted to slapping Canale on another occasion after she had thrown something at him. When asked why he had traveled to Washington, defendant said he had gone there to buy a motorcycle.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
When Park told defendant that his fingerprints were found on the cellophane wrapped around Canales’s body and on the empty boxes of plastic wrap found in the shed next to the body, defendant threw up his hands and said “All right. I’ll tell you what happened.” Defendant then said he came home one day and found Canale dressed in her pajamas, on the bedroom floor, not breathing. He attempted to resuscitate her, and when unsuccessful, put her in a box and placed her body in the shed. A week later, he returned to the shed and covered the body in plastic wrap. Defendant said, “I screwed up. I know I should have dumped her somewhere else.” When asked why he had not called 911 instead, defendant said there were drugs all over the house and he was afraid to call the police.
2. Defense Evidence
Defendant testified in his own defense at trial and said that he met Canale in February 2006. Three weeks later, she moved into his home. He asked her to marry him, and she agreed to do so if she could remain sober for six months, but she never succeeded in remaining sober for more than six days.
After moving in with defendant, Canale occasionally had sex with Anderson and with other men. Defendant said it did not bother him if Canale had sex with other men, so long as she did not use his bed to do so. He admitted to physical altercations with Canale, slapping her after she threw something at him, and on another occasion, slapping her while driving in Anderson’s car, splitting her lip and causing her to spit up blood onto defendant’s rifle.
Defendant testified that on August 12, 2006, he found a note from Canale saying she had gone to get coffee. She returned with a half gallon of wine instead. After Canale finished consuming the wine, defendant gave her $30 to purchase more alcohol. She left but did not return. Defendant walked up and down the block looking for her but could not find her. Anderson arrived at defendant’s house three or four hours later, and defendant told him that Canale had gone to get more alcohol but had not come back. The blood Anderson observed on defendant’s arm was from a scab that failed to heal when defendant injured himself several days before. When Anderson asked about the injury, defendant told Anderson he “hit it on the door” while “following” Canale outside.
Defendant remained at home for the next several days waiting for Canale to call him. He looked for her in nearby parks she frequented during her alcoholic binges, but he did not contact her family to see if they had heard from her. On the morning of August 16, 2006, defendant delivered a motorcycle for Anderson. As payment, Anderson gave defendant $100 worth of rock cocaine, which defendant smoked in his garage between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. He then went into the house, and found his bedroom door locked. He unlocked the door and found Canale lying on the floor, not breathing, and with no pulse. Defendant pushed down on her chest and “heard bubbles coming out of her lungs.” He found two empty vodka bottles in the room but had no idea what had caused her death.
Defendant initially thought about calling 911, but dismissed the idea because Anderson had left a large quantity of cocaine in defendant’s house. Instead, he put Canale’s body in a cardboard box and stored it in the shed, with the intention of transporting her body to Washington and burying it there on property he intended to acquire for that purpose.
A week later, Anderson began complaining about an odor emanating from the shed. To minimize the odor, defendant wrapped Canale’s body in cellophane and poured cat litter around it. He secured the shed door with chains and locks in order to keep animals out. During the week following Canale’s death, defendant got together with an ex-girlfriend, Mikki, because he had to “carry on” with his life. Mikki purchased defendant’s plane ticket to Washington.
When police officers arrived at defendant’s house on September 4, 2006, to conduct a welfare check on Canale, defendant lied to them because he did not want them to take her body away from him. Following his arrest, defendant denied telling the officers that he should have “dumped” Canale’s body somewhere else, but said that he had told them “I could have put her someplace other than where I did.”
DISCUSSION
I. 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.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 553, quoting People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1128.) The reviewing court must draw all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 640.) Reversal is not warranted unless it appears that “‘upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
The elements of the crime of second degree murder are “(1) an unlawful killing; (2) accomplished with malice aforethought, whether express or implied.” (People v. Malfavon (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 727, 735; Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) Malice is express “when the defendant manifests ‘a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 107.) It is implied “‘when the killing results from an intentional act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life’ [citation].” (Ibid.)
Defendant claims the prosecution’s case was based on suspicion and speculation because there was insufficient evidence to establish that Canale was murdered or that he was the perpetrator of the crime. He relies principally on the coroner’s inability to determine the cause of Canale’s death. The coroner was unable to determine the cause of death because of the advanced state of decomposition of Canale’s body. This in turn was due to defendant’s failure to report Canale’s death and his subsequent concealment of her body. A rational trier of fact could infer that defendant did not report Canale’s death and concealed her body because he killed her and wanted to prevent the cause of death from being discovered. Defendant claims he did not call 911 when he purportedly discovered Canale’s inert body because he did not want the police to find cocaine stored in his house. He did not, however, attempt to dispose of the cocaine and then notify the police, but instead concealed Canale’s body in a cardboard box, which he secreted in a storage shed. He then secured the shed with locks and chains to prevent others from discovering the body. When Anderson noticed an odor emanating from the shed, defendant wrapped Canale’s body in plastic and spread cat litter in the plastic and around the floor to mask the odor of the decomposing body. The jury could reasonably infer that defendant’s concealment of Canale’s body was evidence of his guilt. (People v. Wong (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 812, 832.)
There was also evidence that defendant was disposed to commit violence on Canale. A week and half before Canale disappeared, defendant drove Canale to Topanga in Anderson’s car and beat her. After that incident, witnesses saw Canale’s bruised and bloodied face, and her blood was found inside Anderson’s car. Anderson also observed blood on defendant’s arm at the time defendant said that Canale was gone.
Defendant claims that “ample evidence” supports the conclusion that Canale died of natural causes, given her history of alcohol abuse and other medical problems. That claim is premised, however, on defendant’s characterization of the evidence and the inferences that should be drawn from it. It is the jury’s province to decide what inferences to draw from the facts. “Since the drawing of possible inferences from facts and the assessment of witnesses’ credibility are within the exclusive province of the finder of fact, the jury is in an eminently superior position to undertake those functions.” (People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 40.)
The jury had ample reason for doubting defendant’s credibility. Defendant lied to police officers and others about Canale’s death, and he fled the state after officers came to check on Canale’s welfare. Defendant also gave inconsistent statements about the circumstances of Canale’s disappearance. He told Anderson that Canale was gone, possibly to Mexico, and that he had slammed the door on her. He told police officers that Canale had left him a note saying she was going for a walk from which she never returned. In light of the evidence, a reasonable jury was entitled to disbelieve defendant’s version of events.
Viewed as a whole, the record contains substantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant killed Canale.
III. Modification
Section 2933.2 directs that anyone convicted of murder may not accrue or earn good time/work time custody credit. The trial court awarded defendant 107 days in good time/work time custody credit in error. We modify the judgment accordingly. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [an appellate court is authorized to correct an unauthorized sentence].)
DISPOSITION
The cause is remanded to the superior court with directions to prepare a new abstract of judgment striking the 107 days of good time/work time credit, and to forward the modified judgment to the correction officials. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J.