People v. Gonzales
51 Cal. 4th 894
Cal.2011Background
- Gonzales was convicted of murdering four-year-old Genny Rojas with special circumstances of torture and mayhem, resulting in a death sentence.
- Evidence showed extensive abuse and torture of Genny by Gonzales and her husband Ivan, including burns, head injuries, restraints, and neglect.
- Gonzales claimed battered woman syndrome and sought to have defense experts testify; the defense introduced extensive childhood abuse history.
- The prosecution presented expert and lay testimony to rebut the battered woman theory; multiple evidentiary rulings and discovery-related issues were contested.
- The guilt phase included videotaped interviews and various expert opinions; the penalty phase featured emotional prosecutorial arguments and defense mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecution-expert examinations under Danis/Verdin authority | Verdin allowed statutory basis via Evidence Code 730. | Danis precluded prosecution examinations after discovery limits. | Verdin controls; harmless error though examined under 730 alternative; no reversal. |
| Cross-examination about Ivan's battered-spouse defense | Crossing defense experts about Ivan's status is probative. | Probing Ivan’s status invaded defense theory and misled jurors. | Limitations proper; harmless given other substantial evidence. |
| Admission of Ivan's police statements under 1230 | Statements show consciousness of guilt and corroborate guilt. | Statements are self-serving and inadmissible as declarations against interest. | Court properly excluded as 1230 declarations against interest; not probative of defendant's guilt. |
| Prosecutor's penalty-phase 'letter to Genny' argument and curative measures | Letter invoked collective parental responsibility and passion to secure death. | Argument was improper inflammatory rhetoric; curative admonitions inadequate. | Not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; reversal warranted as to penalty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walkey v. State, 111 Cal.App.3d 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (profile evidence limits; rebuttal allowed when defendant introduces abuse evidence)
- Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (1997) (mental-condition examination rights; waiver when defendant places state at issue)
- Ver din v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2008) (clarified discovery/statutory authority for mental-expert appointments under 730; retroactivity discussed)
- People v. Wallace, 44 Cal.4th 1032 (Cal. 2008) ( evidentiary and 352 balancing; cross-exam scope; harmless error standard)
- People v. Farley, 46 Cal.4th 1053 (Cal. 2009) (merger doctrine limitations; capital-sentencing standards)