People v. Moore
210 Cal. Rptr. 3d 769
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim Roberto Ayala died on July 16, 2011, from explosive shrapnel and electrocution after detonating an improvised device hidden in an irrigation pump control panel; no eyewitnesses or direct physical evidence (fingerprints/DNA) linked a person to the bomb parts.
- Defendant Paul Moore was convicted by a jury of first degree murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence that he built/placed a victim-activated bomb targeted to Ayala.
- Prosecution evidence: Paul had mechanical/electrical aptitude; items and materials at the farm shop matched components found at the scene; an indented sheet with the bomb diagram found at Paul’s house bore Paul’s fingerprints; paper/ink/label and fishing line forensics linked documents and bolt-wrapping to materials from Paul’s home/boat.
- Defense theory: Paul’s cousin Peter had motive, violent disposition, opportunity, and some computer evidence (YouTube rat-trap video); Peter was a plausible alternative perpetrator.
- Trial rulings at issue on appeal: (1) sufficiency of circumstantial evidence supporting Paul’s conviction; (2) admissibility of prior-bad-act evidence (wiretapping, earlier acetylene bomb, and Paul’s “My Life” document); and (3) denial of defense surrebuttal and alleged prosecutorial error in rebuttal argument.
Issues
| Issue | People/Prosecution Argument | Moore/Defendant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain first degree murder conviction | Circumstantial forensic links (fingerprints on indented sheet, matching paper/ink/labels, matching fishing line, materials in shop), opportunity, skill, motive — sufficient for a rational jury. | Evidence is purely circumstantial and equally or more consistent with Peter as the perpetrator; prosecution proof is speculative and insufficient. | Affirmed: viewing record in light most favorable to verdict, evidence was substantial and allowed reasonable jurors to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts (wiretap and 20-year-old acetylene bomb) under Evid. Code §1101(b) and §352 | Prior acts probative of technical knowledge/experience with electrical and explosive devices; limited risk of prejudice and brief presentation. | Acts were remote, weakly probative of requisite skills, and unduly prejudicial; admission violated due process. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; remoteness and prejudice were outweighed by probative value showing familiarity with electrical/explosive devices. |
| Admissibility of Paul’s written statement (“My Life”) | Highly probative of motive and long‑standing resentment toward Ayala; admissible despite age because it explains motive. | Document was remote and prejudicial; did not contain threats and was improperly used to show propensity. | Affirmed: properly admitted for motive/intent under §1101(b); probative value exceeded any undue prejudice under §352. |
| Denial of defense surrebuttal and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal (including analogies and characterizing conduct) | Prosecutor’s rebuttal confined to evidence already in record and responsive to defense theory; trial court properly limited arguments and sustained objections. | Rebuttal introduced new emphasis (sandbagging) and improper analogies/characterizations deprived defense of fair reply and were prejudicial. | Affirmed: court reasonably denied surrebuttal; rebuttal did not present evidence outside the record nor require additional reply; challenged remarks were brief/analogical and did not cause prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Davis, 46 Cal.4th 539 (review of sufficiency of evidence standard)
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
- People v. Morris, 46 Cal.3d 1 (circumstantial evidence cannot rest on mere speculation)
- People v. Hillhouse, 27 Cal.4th 469 (motive not required but is relevant)
- People v. Robbins, 45 Cal.3d 867 (requirements for admitting uncharged misconduct under Evid. Code §1101)
- People v. Kelly, 42 Cal.4th 763 (analysis of admissibility of prior acts)
- People v. Kipp, 18 Cal.4th 349 (abuse of discretion standard for §1101 rulings)
- People v. Jacobs, 156 Cal.App.4th 728 (standard of review for §352 balancing)
- People v. Hendrix, 214 Cal.App.4th 216 (limits on propensity evidence and relevance)
- People v. Johnson, 77 Cal.App.4th 410 (trial court’s §352 discretion)
- People v. Olguin, 31 Cal.App.4th 1355 (admission of defendant’s writings to prove motive)