People v. Becerrada
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662
| Cal. | 2017Background
- In March 2000 Ruben Becerrada was convicted of first‑degree murder of Maria Arevalo with special circumstances (witness killing, murder during kidnapping, and lying in wait), plus rape, witness dissuasion, and kidnapping; jury imposed death sentence; automatic appeal followed.
- Facts: Maria reported that Becerrada raped and threatened her in Aug 1999; she filed charges and obtained a restraining order; prosecution alleged Becerrada continued intimidation and ultimately abducted and murdered her on March 4, 2000. Her body showed blunt force trauma, ligature and manual strangulation, and stab wounds; her body was placed in trunk and her car abandoned.
- Physical and forensic evidence linked the crime scene and items found in defendant’s bedroom (beanie, Marlboro pack with victim’s blood, victim’s address book, a photo labeled with gang initials) to Becerrada; witnesses observed the assault; DNA testing matched victim blood to items found with defendant.
- Defense admitted killing but disputed premeditation and contested special‑circumstance allegations and other crimes; expert testimony on intimate‑partner violence explained victim’s behavior; defendant presented mitigation evidence on background and neuropsychological deficits.
- Supreme Court review: affirmed convictions and death judgment except reversed the lying‑in‑wait special‑circumstance finding for insufficient evidence because there was no proof defendant knew before the meeting that Maria had not dropped charges (no substantial period of watching and waiting).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of tattoo/gang photographs | Photographs show scratches and gang affiliation relevant to motive, intimidation, identity and were probative | More prejudicial than probative under Evid. Code §352; tattoos unduly inflammatory | Admission within trial court discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice (no abuse of discretion) |
| Admission of gang hand sign and gang notations | Hand sign and notations show gang membership and intimidation relevant to motive and witness dissuasion | Prejudicial and hearsay; insufficient foundation | Properly admitted; foundation established and evidence relevant to context of intimidation and motive |
| Sufficiency of evidence for lying‑in‑wait special circumstance | Circumstantial proof (calls, victim came to neighborhood, attack at defendant’s home) supports watching/waiting and surprise attack | No evidence defendant knew before the meeting that victim had not dropped charges; no substantial period of watching and waiting | Reversed lying‑in‑wait finding: evidence insufficient because no proof defendant learned of her refusal to drop charge before she arrived (no substantial period of watching/waiting) |
| Penalty‑phase deputy testimony (opinion/hearsay) and 190.3(b) instruction | Deputies’ lay opinions and jail misconduct evidence show continuous violent behavior relevant to aggravation; listing of crimes including obstruct/resist appropriate | Objected as impermissible opinion, hearsay, and that instruction allowed nonviolent acts to be considered in aggravation | Testimony admissible as lay opinion based on deputies’ perceptions; any instructional ambiguity about obstruct/resist harmless given overwhelming violent aggravation evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 51 Cal.4th 346 (probative value of gang evidence vs. prejudice)
- People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (gang evidence relevance to motive, identity, intimidation)
- People v. Streeter, 54 Cal.4th 205 (definitions and elements of lying‑in‑wait special circumstance)
- People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182 (lying‑in‑wait requires concealment, period of watching and waiting, surprise attack)
- People v. Farnam, 28 Cal.4th 107 (lay opinion testimony admissible if rationally based on perception and helpful)
- People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d 771 (continuous course of criminal activity involving violence may be considered in aggravation)