Summary
The California Supreme Court reviews Isaac Gutierrez Jr.'s convictions for multiple murders, burglary, kidnapping, forcible rape, and attempted murder, as well as his death sentence. The court addresses, among other issues, territorial jurisdiction over the murder and attempted-murder charges and concludes that San Bernardino County had jurisdiction. The court found no prejudicial error and affirmed the convictions and judgment of death.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether San Bernardino County had territorial jurisdiction over the Jones murder and the attempted murder of Officer Dunavent.
- Whether trial of the charges together was improper and required severance.
- Whether the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges against prospective Hispanic jurors based on race in violation of Wheeler and Batson.
- Whether the corpus delicti of forcible rape was independently established and whether the evidence supported Gutierrez's conviction as an aider and abettor.
- Whether a statement obtained after invocation of Miranda rights was admissible for impeachment.
- Whether the trial court improperly excluded third-party culpability evidence.
- Whether various evidentiary rulings and alleged prosecutorial misconduct required reversal.
- Whether felony-murder instructions were proper for Stopher's murder.
- Whether the trial court improperly refused requested voluntary- and involuntary-manslaughter instructions.
- Whether the lying-in-wait special circumstance was unconstitutional.
- Whether any identified error was prejudicial.
Holdings
- San Bernardino County had territorial jurisdiction because Jones's body was found there within the meaning of Penal Code section 790.
- San Bernardino County had jurisdiction over the attempted murder because the attempted murder was requisite to the consummation of the ongoing kidnapping that began in San Bernardino County.
- Trial of the consolidated charges in San Bernardino County did not violate Gutierrez's federal or state vicinage rights.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by trying the charges together.
- The trial court properly denied Gutierrez's Wheeler motions because the challenged peremptory strikes were supported by facially valid race-neutral reasons.
- The corpus delicti rule required independent proof of the forcible rape, but not independent proof of Gutierrez's identity, knowledge, or intent as an aider and abettor; the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
- The statement that Gutierrez rented the van from a person named Edwin was admissible for the limited purpose of impeaching his contrary trial testimony, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court properly excluded third-party culpability evidence concerning Jones's murder because the proffered evidence showed, at most, motive or opportunity and did not link an identifiable third party to the actual perpetration of the crime.
- Felony murder was a viable theory because the killing occurred during the burglary and the burglary and murder formed one continuous transaction; concurrent intent to kill did not defeat the theory.
- The trial court did not reversibly err by refusing additional pinpoint instructions on heat of passion, long-smoldering provocation, and verbal provocation because the standard instructions adequately covered the valid principles and any error was harmless.
- The trial court properly refused an involuntary-manslaughter instruction because the evidence showed an intentional shooting directed at Stopher and did not warrant the instruction.
- The challenged prosecutorial questioning and evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal because objections were sustained where appropriate, any misconduct was minor or forfeited, and no resulting prejudice was shown.
Key quotations
“Section 781 constitutes an exception to the rule when acts or effects of an offense occur in multiple counties.” (397)
“the corpus delicti must be established with respect to the underlying criminal offense, rather than the theory of aiding and abetting” (405)
“The Harris court held that statements made to police under circumstances rendering them inadmissible under Miranda in the prosecution's case in chief could be admitted for purposes of impeachment” (408)
“evidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt” (412)
“All that is demanded is that the two `are parts of one continuous transaction.'” (415)
Factual background
Gutierrez killed Billie Faye Jones, concealed her body in Jones's van, and used the van to travel to Hesperia, where he and his son entered the home of Gutierrez's estranged wife, Rose V., and killed her live-in partner, John Stopher. Gutierrez and his son then kidnapped Rose V., and the son raped her while Gutierrez aided the crime; during the ensuing drive, Gutierrez attempted to kill Coachella police officer David Dunavent during a traffic stop. The prosecution presented physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, Gutierrez's statements, and evidence of planning, while Gutierrez disputed responsibility for Jones's murder and asserted intoxication, brain damage, cultural pressures, and heat of passion as defenses.
Procedural history
A San Bernardino County Superior Court jury convicted Gutierrez of two first degree murders, residential burglary, kidnapping, aiding and abetting forcible rape, and attempted murder of a police officer. The jury found special circumstances and weapon-use allegations true and returned a death verdict. The trial court denied the automatic motion to modify the penalty and imposed death. The California Supreme Court reviewed the judgment on automatic appeal and found no prejudicial error, affirming the convictions and judgment of death in their entirety.