Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. SF101251A
DAVIS, Acting P. J.
A jury convicted defendant Luis Alonso Vega of second degree murder and of possessing a firearm as a felon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12021, subd. (a).) The jury acquitted defendant of first degree murder and found he did not intentionally and personally discharge a handgun during the murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) According to defendant, the jury acquitted codefendant Zackarie Beck of the murder.
Hereafter, undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
On appeal defendant contends there is insufficient evidence that he killed the victim or aided and abetted her killing. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The Discovery of the Body and the Scene
Nineteen-year-old Jennifer Holland’s smoldering, lifeless body was found in an asparagus field on Thursday, August 3, 2006, around 6:00 a.m. Jennifer had been fatally shot in the head and her body taken to the area and burned, using some form of flammable accelerant. Evidence showed that Jennifer’s body had been dumped in the area sometime after 10:00 p.m. on August 2.
At the scene, officers found fresh tire tracks that may have been from one vehicle or two. The tracks could not be plaster-casted because of the fineness of the soil, but they were photographed.
Jennifer’s entire body was charred except for one hand and one foot. From fingerprints on the uncharred hand, the police were able to determine her identity.
Police notified Jennifer’s mother and brother of her death, and they in turn told the police that Jennifer had been staying at some property on Finck Road (the Finck Road property) or at an Extended Stay Motel in Tracy.
The Finck Road Property and People
On the evening of August 3, 2006, the police searched the Finck Road property. They discovered a methamphetamine lab and several people about.
Among others at this property, officers questioned Conrado Z., Alfredo L. and Angela G.
For privacy purposes, first names are used.
Conrado lived in a trailer on the property, and he allowed Alfredo to stay there occasionally. Conrado initially tried to flee after the police said they were there because Jennifer had been a victim of a homicide, but he was apprehended.
Alfredo and Jennifer had dated for a few weeks, and she sometimes stayed the night with him at Conrado’s trailer. Shortly before Jennifer was murdered, she and Alfredo had broken up, with Jennifer telling him, among other choice phrasings, to “fuck off.” Jennifer then started seeing defendant, whom she had dated about a year earlier.
Alfredo last saw Jennifer on Monday, July 31, 2006. She and defendant were standing outside a local store on Tracy Boulevard when Conrado pulled up in his red car and Jennifer left with him.
Although Alfredo never saw Jennifer again, he talked to her on the phone on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, around 8:00 a.m. He had called to remind her of her court hearing that day, and she said that “friends” were giving her a ride there. Jennifer had been charged with two Vehicle Code violations and drug possession. Later on August 2, Alfredo tried five or six times to no avail to reach Jennifer on her cell phone (Jennifer was actually borrowing this phone from Alfredo); Jennifer never returned any of his voice mail messages. Conrado had told Alfredo that he was upset with Jennifer because he believed she was using him for drugs.
Angela, an acquaintance of Jennifer’s, stated she spent the night of August 2, 2006, at the trailer talking and smoking methamphetamine with Alfredo. According to Angela, she and Alfredo were alone that night. Alfredo, however, said that Conrado was also there that night, but left around 2:30 a.m. (now August 3) (Alfredo’s statement to police) or 5:00 a.m. (Alfredo’s trial testimony). Sometime during the night of August 2, when Angela apparently had stepped out, Alfredo saw Conrado bring in a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun in a sock. (Officers found such a gun along with 15 rounds of ammunition in the trailer, and a single .38-caliber bullet.)
The Tracy Boulevard Property and People
Based on information obtained from Conrado, Alfredo and Angela, police searched property located on Tracy Boulevard (the Tracy Boulevard property) on Friday, August 4, 2006. This property was in a rural area and included a two-bedroom modular home rented out to codefendant Beck, where defendant resided temporarily. Beck’s landlord informed Beck around the end of July 2006 that the friend staying with him (i.e., defendant) would have to leave.
At the search, police encountered Beck, defendant and Maria J. Maria had met defendant just a week before and had begun dating him.
Maria visited defendant at the modular house on July 28 (Friday) and on July 30 and 31 (Sunday and Monday). On those days, the green couch in the living room was in normal condition. However, when Maria visited defendant beginning around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 2 (staying for three to four hours), she noticed the cushions for the green couch were missing. When she inquired about the cushions, Beck replied they had spilled Kool-Aid on them. Maria also noticed staining on the carpet “that looked obvious compared to the other times [she] had been there.”
Maria saw defendant again on Thursday morning, August 3, and then on the next morning as well. The Friday visit encompassed a trip to defendant’s parole officer and then a return to the Tracy Boulevard property where Maria helped defendant collect his belongings, as he had to move out. Defendant always drove a blue Honda Accord and usually parked by the modular home’s back door.
During their search, officers noticed that the modular home was quite neat, that the cushions were missing off the green couch in the living room, and that there were reddish-colored stains (suspected bloodstains) on the couch (including its frame and bottom backing), on the carpet around the couch, and on the walls and door frames (smudges) in the kitchen and laundry room (leading to the home’s back door). A red-stained comforter and a loaded .22-caliber rifle were found in a bedroom and a red-stained rag was found in the kitchen garbage can.
Outside the modular home, the officers found a black plastic trash bag containing a sock, a shirt, a towel and a rag that all appeared to be bloodstained. In a nearby shed, another trash bag was found containing a woman’s small purse with a $50 bill inside, Jennifer’s court citation for her August 2 appearance, three bloodstained rags, and a bloodstained pillow case. A can of camp fuel was found next to the shed. And about 20 feet from the house was a dumpster that contained the two cushions missing from the living room couch.
The police secured the modular home after their August 4 search. However, when the landlord of the Tracy Boulevard property notified police there was an opened window at the house after the search, police returned to the scene on August 10. On this latter date, police found a backpack containing defendant’s parole papers in one bedroom, a wallet containing Beck’s identification along with a stained $100 bill in the other bedroom, a propane receipt, some baggies containing an off-white substance, and a cross necklace in the living room. Some of these items appeared to be in plain view on August 10. During this time period, defendant, Beck and Conrado remained in custody.
The Extended Stay Motel
On Tuesday, August 1, 2006, Conrado and Jennifer checked into the motel for 30 days. Conrado paid for the first seven days, pursuant to motel policy.
The motel clerk gave the surveillance tapes for the motel’s lobby to the police, and stated the tapes should show Jennifer with a Hispanic male who had tattoos (possibly tear drops) on his face. The clerk had seen this Hispanic male with Jennifer at the motel more than once. At trial, the clerk identified defendant as this Hispanic male. The clerk had seen Conrado only once, when Conrado checked in with Jennifer.
Forensic Evidence
Bloodstains from Jennifer were found in the trunk of defendant’s blue Honda, on the missing cushions of the green couch, on the foam from that couch, on the carpet near the couch, and on a comforter found in one of the modular home’s bedrooms.
Cell phone records showed that calls were made between the cell phone Jennifer was using and the cell phone defendant was using on August 1, and again on August 2, the date of Jennifer’s scheduled court appearance. The times of the August 2 calls were 1:29 a.m., 7:20 a.m. and 8:03 a.m. The last outgoing call ever made from Jennifer’s phone was this last call on August 2 to defendant’s phone; and any calls after that to Jennifer’s phone went to voice mail.
As noted, two sets of fresh tire tracks, from one or two vehicles, were found at the crime scene. The soil at the scene was too fine to cast for an impression. Based on a visual examination, the tracks looked similar to defendant’s blue Honda and to a Chrysler Sebring owned by Cynthia G. (Cynthia, along with the Sebring, was at the Finck Road property when police arrived there on the evening of August 3).
Fingerprints taken from defendant’s blue Honda were matched to defendant and to Maria but not to Beck or Jennifer.
A .38 revolver was almost certainly used to kill Jennifer, and the fatal bullet had lodged in her cheek. This gun was never found.
The Defense
Defendant maintained that Conrado had killed Jennifer.
Conrado was implicated in the methamphetamine lab on the Finck Road property. According to Alfredo, Conrado told him that he was upset with Jennifer because he felt she was using him for drugs. Conrado had once mentioned to Alfredo that if anyone ever stole from him, he would kill them. Alfredo added that it was commonly known that Conrado was not someone to “mess with.”
As noted, after police informed Conrado on August 3 at the Finck Road property that Jennifer had been a victim of a homicide, Conrado tried unsuccessfully to flee. Conrado told the officers he did not want to be “‘implicated in no homicide.’” (Despite Conrado’s attempt to flee, officers found Conrado forthcoming and truthful about Jennifer. Conrado did not refuse to answer any question, detectives were able to confirm the truth of his statements, he told officers he had been with Jennifer just a few days before the murder at the local market and at the Extended Stay Motel, and he appeared genuinely surprised by Jennifer’s death.)
At trial, Conrado asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer almost every question, notwithstanding having been offered a limited immunity deal. Outside the jury’s presence, the trial court held Conrado in contempt and sentenced him to five days in jail.
Discussion
In defendant’s own words, “the precise question here is whether substantial evidence was presented that would support a beyond a reasonable doubt jury finding that [defendant] harbored express or implied malice either as [the direct perpetrator] or aider and abettor.” =AOB 30=
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576-578; People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377, 385.)
Applying that standard here, we conclude there was sufficient evidence that defendant killed Jennifer or aided and abetted her killing and that he did so with malice. It is unnecessary to repeat the lengthy set of facts we have just detailed. A look at the highlights will more than suffice.
As for the killing, the forensic evidence at the Tracy Boulevard property was overwhelming that Jennifer had been shot on the living room couch of defendant’s temporary residence and placed in defendant’s car, a car the evidence showed that only defendant drove. Aside from all the bloodstain evidence, tire track evidence linked defendant’s car to the site of Jennifer’s dumped body. Furthermore, the residence appeared to have been cleaned after the killing.
Defendant and Jennifer were intimately connected in a chronology leading up to the murder. About a year prior to the murder, they had been in a romantic relationship. Just days prior to the murder, they were in touch by cell phone, and had been seen together at the local market and at the Extended Stay Motel. Alfredo essentially testified that defendant and Jennifer were once again an item just before the murder. On the apparent day of the murder (August 2), there were calls made between Jennifer’s cell phone and defendant’s in the morning. Those calls were the last ones ever made from Jennifer’s phone. Near in time to the latter two of these two calls, Jennifer had also told Alfredo when he phoned her that she was getting a ride to her August 2 court appearance from “friends.” After her August 2 court appearance, she was never heard from again.
When defendant’s new romantic interest, Maria, showed up at defendant’s residence on August 2nd at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., she noticed for the first time that the cushions on the living room couch were gone and that there were obvious stains on the carpet near the couch. Defendant’s roommate, Beck, provided an innocent, but untrue, explanation for the missing cushions (a Kool-Aid spill). After the killing, defendant enlisted Maria’s help to collect his belongings, as he needed to find another place to stay.
As for malice, the manner of killing, along with the manner of disposing of the body, supports such a finding. The killing was accomplished by a close gunshot wound to the top left of Jennifer’s head that went downward through her brain into her right cheek. This indicated an intent to kill. The body was disposed of by burning it with a flammable accelerant in an apparent effort to forestall identification (such an accelerant, a can of camp fuel, was found outside defendant’s residence among a plethora of forensic evidence).
Finally, defendant contends that since the jury found he did not discharge a handgun during the murder, the jury must have found he was only an aider and abettor. This point is not well taken. Because inconsistent jury findings frequently result from leniency, mercy or confusion, the law makes clear that a decision on each count or enhancement must stand on its own, and a verdict on one has no bearing on any other. (§ 954 [stating in part, “An acquittal of one or more counts shall not be deemed an acquittal of any other count”]; People v. York (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1510; People v. Lopez (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 565, 570-571; People v. Pahl (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1651, 1656-1657.)
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support defendant’s second degree murder conviction.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, J., BUTZ, J.