IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

PRUDENCIO JUAN FRAGOS-RAMIREZ,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 34901-2-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

KORSMO, J. — Prudencio Juan Fragos-Ramirez (Juan Fragos)1appeals from 

convictions for two counts of aggravated first degree murder of Maria Cruz and her son, 

L.L.C. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding third party perpetrator 

evidence. We affirm.

FACTS

The bodies of Ms. Cruz, 18, and her three-year-old son were discovered in her 

burned car about 5:54 p.m. on July 2, 2015, roughly 18-20 minutes after smoke was first 

reported. The two victims had last been seen in the company of Mr. Fragos about 5:10-

5:15 p.m. that day. Fragos’s home was about one-half mile from the location where the 

car and bodies were discovered.

 

1 Appellant’s counsel advised us that his client uses the name Juan Fragos, but that 

the name in the case caption is his correct name. Br. of Appellant at 1 n.1. 

FILED

MARCH 14, 2019

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 34901-2-III

State v. Fragos-Ramirez

2

There was conflicting evidence whether Fragos and Cruz were in a dating 

relationship or not. It did appear that Cruz had been selling large quantities of cocaine 

and methamphetamine for Fragos during the final few months of her brief life. In the 

days leading up to her death, she had become concerned about having lost some of the 

drugs she was supposed to have been selling.

The relevant events of July 2 began with Fragos texting Cruz 160 times, starting 

around 3:00 a.m., despite Cruz telling him that she was going to sleep. That afternoon, 

he texted her to meet him at his house in an Othello area orchard and directed her to use a 

dirt road; she was not to tell anyone where she was due to security reasons. Cruz 

attempted to call Fernando Lopez Aguirre, the father of L.L.C., at 4:57 p.m. from 

Fragos’s home. Mr. Lopez, who was drinking beer with his roommate and his boss, did 

not answer the phone call.

Ms. Cruz’s body was discovered kneeling in the front passenger seat of her car, 

while L.L.C. was in the backseat. Both had died from multiple gunshot wounds inflicted 

by Perfecta 9 mm Luger ammunition. A clean box of that type of ammunition later

would be recovered from a dusty shed on Fragos’s property. A 9 mm handgun was 

recovered from the orchard where the car was discovered. The gun appeared to match 

one Fragos was seen holding in a photograph.

Fragos was observed returning to his home around 7:00 p.m. It was after midnight 

before police visited with him. By that time he had deleted all of the July 2 text messages 
No. 34901-2-III

State v. Fragos-Ramirez

3

between his phone and Ms. Cruz’s phone. He denied having seen Cruz that day. He also 

denied owning a gun.

After the discovery of the gun, police again questioned Fragos. He told them that 

he once owned a gun, but had sold it to Cruz and used the proceeds to buy food for a 

barbecue.2 When told that the police had recovered the murder weapon, Fragos told the 

detectives that his prints would be found on the gun and that they had enough evidence to 

convict him.

Two counts of aggravated first degree murder eventually were filed. Prior to trial, 

the parties filed competing motions concerning “other suspects” evidence. The State 

sought to exclude evidence that Lopez had motive to commit the crimes, while the 

defense sought to introduce evidence that Lopez had mistreated Cruz and was angry at 

her. The court excluded the evidence, finding both that the defense had no admissible 

evidence and did not satisfy the foundation for admitting other suspect evidence.

The case proceeded to jury trial. Lopez was in Mexico during the trial and was 

not called on to provide testimony. The defense argued the case on a theory that the 

investigation had focused on Mr. Fragos early on and did not consider other possibilities, 

including the circle of people in Ms. Cruz’s life. Nonetheless, the jury rejected his 

 

2 Shopping receipts contradicted this statement; his brother later would contradict 

other portions of the defendant’s story. 
No. 34901-2-III

State v. Fragos-Ramirez

4

argument and convicted him as charged. The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence 

of life in prison without possibility of parole.

Mr. Fragos then timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal 

without hearing oral argument.

ANALYSIS

This appeal presents a single issue. Mr. Fragos contends that the trial court erred 

by excluding his other suspects evidence, thereby preventing him from presenting a 

defense to the charges. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Well-settled case authority governs our review. Trial court judges have great 

discretion with respect to the admission of evidence and will be overturned only for 

manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-707, 903 P.2d 

960 (1995). Discretion is abused where it is exercised on untenable grounds or for 

untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). 

Under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, 

section 22 of the Washington Constitution, a defendant is entitled to present evidence in 

support of his defense. State v. Strizheus, 163 Wn. App. 820, 829-830, 262 P.3d 100 

(2011). That right, however, does not include a right to present irrelevant or inadmissible 

evidence. State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010); State v. Hudlow, 99 

Wn.2d 1, 15, 659 P.2d 514 (1983). As the proponent of the evidence, the defendant bears 
No. 34901-2-III

State v. Fragos-Ramirez

5

the burden of establishing relevance and materiality. State v. Pacheco, 107 Wn.2d 59, 

67, 726 P.2d 981 (1986). 

The defense is allowed to present evidence that another person committed the 

crime when it can establish “a train of facts or circumstances as tend clearly to point out 

some one besides the prisoner as the guilty party.” State v. Downs, 168 Wash. 664, 667, 

13 P.2d 1 (1932); State v. Rehak, 67 Wn. App. 157, 162, 834 P.2d 651 (1992). In 

establishing a foundation for admission of other suspects evidence, the defendant must 

show a clear nexus between the other person and the crime. State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App. 

734, 800, 285 P.3d 83 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1023, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 

170 (2013). The proposed evidence must also show that the third party took a step 

indicating an intention to act on the motive or opportunity. Id. However, evidence that 

merely establishes a motive to commit the crime is insufficient to establish the 

connection. State v. Kwan, 174 Wash. 528, 533, 25 P.2d 104 (1933); State v. Condon, 72 

Wn. App. 638, 647, 865 P.2d 521 (1993). 

Here, the trial court rejected the other suspects evidence because it failed to 

connect Lopez to the killing, while noting that much of the proffered evidence also was 

inadmissible hearsay or excludable by ER 404(b). Since the evidence failed to meet 

foundational requirements, we need not discuss the other evidentiary concerns noted by 

the trial judge.
No. 34901-2-III

State v. Fragos-Ramirez

6

Although Mr. Fragos argues his case is similar to the decision in State v. OrtunoPerez, 196 Wn. App. 771, 385 P.3d 218 (2016), it is not. There the other suspects were 

admittedly at the scene of the shooting, were armed, and had opportunity to fire the fatal 

shot. Id. at 776-777. Here, no evidence was ever presented linking Lopez to the crime 

scene. Instead, the facts of this case are very similar to State v. Wade, 186 Wn. App. 749, 

346 P.3d 838 (2015). 

There, as here, the defendant was convicted of murder in the death of a woman 

and criticized the police investigation as flawed for failure to investigate other suspects—

primarily the victim’s ex-boyfriend. Id. at 763. The former boyfriend had previously 

assaulted the victim several years earlier, was subject to a no-contact order, and left 

voicemail “implied threats” three months before the killing. Id. at 765. Extensive testing 

did not turn up any of the former boyfriend’s DNA or fingerprints at the crime scene—

the victim’s apartment. He also did not appear on the security camera recordings for the 

apartment building. Id. at 765-766.

On those facts, Division One of this court agreed with the trial court that the other 

suspects evidence was not admissible, noting that the trial court “properly focused solely 

on the connection of the proffered other suspect evidence to the crime.” Id. at 766. The 

fact that the ex-boyfriend was a “bad actor” with a violent history and “a motive to harm 

her” was not enough. Id. at 766-767. The court noted that there was “no physical 

evidence connecting” the boyfriend to the murder and “no evidence” that he “was 
No. 34901-2-III 

State v. Fragos-Ramirez 

anywhere near" the "apartment when the crime occurred." Id. at 767. Accordingly, there 

was no evidence leading to a "nonspeculative" link between the crime and the exboyfriend. Id. 

This case is in the same factual situation. Mr. Fragos failed to present any 

evidence that put Lopez at the scene, or even in the general vicinity. The fact that Lopez 

may have mistreated Ms. Cruz previously and allegedly may have had a motive to harm 

her was irrelevant in light of any evidence establishing that he had the opportunity to 

commit the murders during the 5:00 hour on July 2, 2015. Absent that connection, there 

was no foundation for admitting the other suspects evidence. 

The trial court correctly excluded the evidence due to the insufficient foundation. 

There was no error. The convictions are affirmed. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

WE CONCUR: 

7