Filed 10/23/13 P. v. Rosas CA2/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROSAS et al., 

 Defendants and Appellants. 

 B233478 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. PA062569) 

 APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed. 

Neil Rosenbaum, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant Christopher James Rosas. 

Verna Wefald, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant Ralph Dominic Rosas. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer and Tita 

Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * * * * * 
2 

 Appellants Christopher James Rosas (Christopher) and his brother Ralph Dominic 

Rosas (Ralph)1 appeal from judgments entered against them following their convictions 

by separate juries of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1)2 and 

assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2). The juries also found true 

the special circumstances allegation of lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15) and the 

allegation that appellants used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). 

 The trial court sentenced appellants to life without the possibility of parole on 

count 1, plus one consecutive year in state prison on count 2, and one consecutive year in 

state prison for the weapons use allegation. The trial court imposed various fines and 

court fees and awarded appellants 853 days of presentence custody credit. 

 Ralph contends the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code 

section 352 by admitting autopsy and crime scene photographs of the victim. He 

contends the photographs were inadmissible in that they were cumulative and that their 

admission violated his federal due process rights. He also contends the admission of a 

note shown to him by his mother during a jailhouse visit was an error which violated his 

right to due process. We find no merit to those contentions. 

 Christopher’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. 

We independently reviewed the record and conclude there are no issues that require 

further briefing. 

 The judgments are affirmed. 

 

1 Because appellants and other individuals share the same last name, we refer to 

each by their first name, for the sake of clarity. No disrespect is intended. 

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 
3 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Prosecution Case 

 Mugsy’s Bar 

Christopher and his best friend Louis Campanelli co-owned Mugsy’s Bar 

(Mugsy’s) on Soledad Canyon Road in Los Angeles. Mugsy’s opened in November of 

2005 and Campanelli “breathed the bar.” He lived there, and was almost always present 

at closing time to handle the money transactions. Christopher was at Mugsy’s regularly 

and was not happy that Campanelli lived there. Ralph was also at Mugsy’s on a daily 

basis. Ralph wore silver necklaces with Indian-type jewelry or a feather-like charm. He 

offered to buy Campanelli’s ownership of Mugsy’s for $40,000 and was angry that 

Campanelli refused his offer. 

Mugsy’s was open daily from 2:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. The front door was locked 

by a deadbolt and only Campanelli and Christopher had the keys to it. The emergency 

exit was never used. Mugsy’s had no telephone land line service and the employees had 

to use their own cell phones. Christopher kept a collection of knives with big handles 

and “monster” blades in a locked tool room on the premises. 

 When Mugsy’s opened in November 2005, Christopher hired Cynthia Wilson 

Rosas (Cindy) to be the head bartender. Cindy dated Christopher for about one and a half 

months. On February 21, 2006, Cindy married Ralph.3 Christopher told Cindy on 

several occasions “that he wanted to get [Campanelli] out of the bar, that [Campanelli] 

had to go, that he was going to kill [Campanelli].” Savino Pilarski was at Mugsy’s every 

day. He became good friends with appellants and viewed them as his brothers. Ralph 

told Pilarski he wanted to become a partner in Mugsy’s. In January 2006, Christopher 

told Pilarski that something had to be done about Campanelli. Pilarski understood that to 

mean Campanelli had to be roughed up or “taken out and killed.” Ralph told his first 

 

3 The ceremony was not valid because Ralph was still legally married to his second 

ex-wife, at that time. Cindy and Ralph were legally married a year later on February 21, 

2007. 
4 

ex-wife, Theresa Liechti, that he was angry at Campanelli because Campanelli did not 

want him as a business partner. 

Murder of Louis Campanelli and Assault on Jennifer Halsworth 

On Saturday, February 25, 2006, Jennifer Halsworth, a part-time bartender, 

worked the day shift from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Mugsy’s. Halsworth had worked at 

Mugsy’s for about two months and had been dating Campanelli for about one month. 

When her shift ended she took the money which amounted to about $400 from the cash 

register and gave it to Campanelli, who stored it in a safe in the back office. Christopher 

and Campanelli were the only people with keys to the safe. Halsworth stayed at Mugsy’s 

after her shift ended. Appellants, Pilarski, Cindy, Shannon Turner (Pilarski’s girlfriend 

and also a former Mugsy’s bartender), were also present. Around 11:00 p.m., Halsworth 

and Campanelli left Mugsy’s to go to a party in North Hollywood. 

 Cindy worked the shift from 8:00 p.m. to closing. She overheard Christopher tell 

Ralph that “tonight was the night.” Ralph explained to her that “tonight was the night 

they were going to take [Campanelli] out and kill him.” Christopher moved his Chevy 

Blazer to the car wash behind the bar and also re-parked Cindy’s car across the street. At 

approximately 1:45 a.m. on the morning of February 26, 2006, Christopher told Cindy to 

close the bar early and get all the customers to leave. Christopher locked the front door 

and Cindy took the money from the register to the back office. While there, she heard a 

commotion including the sound of breaking glass coming from the bar area. She looked 

out and saw both appellants wielding crowbars. They were “ripping apart the ATM 

machine.” They broke the hanging lights near the ramp leading up and into the bar. 

Shortly afterwards they went to the back office and threw things around to make it look 

like it had been ransacked. Appellants wore extra layers of clothing, gloves, and T-shirts 

around their faces so that only their eyes showed. Ralph told Cindy their plan was to kill 

Campanelli when he and Halsworth returned to Mugsy’s from the party. Christopher told 

Cindy to watch the surveillance monitor from the back office and let him and his brother 

know when Campanelli and Halsworth returned. 
5 

 Around 2:30 a.m., Campanelli unlocked the front door of Mugsy’s with his key. 

Campanelli and Halsworth entered the bar which was dark except for the light from the 

television screens. Halsworth walked a few steps inside the bar and then waited while 

Campanelli locked the door. Appellants came out from hiding and struck Campanelli and 

Halsworth with pool cues. Halsworth was struck on the head five or six times until she 

fell to the ground. From about five feet away she saw two assailants beating Campanelli. 

The two assailants called each other “Ben” and “Fred” or “Frank” but the way they used 

the names led Halsworth to believe the names were fake. The longer she heard the 

voices, the more she was certain that appellants were the assailants. Halsworth heard the 

sound of a fire hydrant being sprayed and Campanelli begging his attackers to stop. One 

of them said, “Check his pulse, I want to make sure that he’s dead.” When the other 

responded “He’s not dead yet,” the beating continued and Halsworth heard stabbing 

sounds. Halsworth was crying and hyperventilating and one of the assailants stepped on 

the side of her head and told her to stop breathing or he would “smash [her] head into the 

ground.” A plastic beer crate was placed over her head and she was told not to move. 

Halsworth heard the assailants banging on the ATM machine and then go towards the 

back office. 

 Cindy was in the back office and heard Halsworth scream. She heard the sound of 

grunting and then Christopher said, “Man, you were supposed to be my best friend.” 

Campanelli groaned and asked, “Chris, is that you?” Christopher told his brother, “Bro, 

he won’t die.” Cindy heard Campanelli “pleading for his life gurgling through his 

blood.” After about 20 minutes, Ralph came to get Cindy from the back office and 

walked her to the front of the bar. She saw Campanelli’s motionless body near the front 

door. Campanelli did not respond when Christopher jumped onto his body. Christopher 

then shoved the fire extinguisher hose down Campanelli’s throat and turned it on. Cindy 

and appellants exited Mugsy’s and Christopher locked the deadbolt. 

 Halsworth held onto her purse throughout the attack and when she heard the 

assailants leave she called 9-1-1 on her cell phone. The call did not go through. When 
6 

she tried to call a second time she heard someone unlock the front door and come inside 

the bar.4 She hid the cell phone and remained still underneath the beer crate. Christopher 

demanded her cell phone and car keys. She responded that she did not have her cell 

phone but he said, “Yes, you do.” Christopher took the car keys and cell phone and 

locked the front door and left. Halsworth waited for some time to be sure they had left 

before she got up and ran to the back office. She watched the monitors showing the 

parking lot and front of the bar to see if anyone was coming back and tried to contact 

someone over the Internet.5 When she was unable to pry open the front door, she broke 

the front window and crawled out through the broken glass. After cutting her hands and 

knees on the broken glass, she ran onto Soledad Canyon Road. 

 At 5:30 a.m. on February 26, 2006, Jennifer Stoll was driving to work on Soledad 

Canyon Road. She saw Halsworth waving for help in the middle of the street. Halsworth 

appeared scared and hysterical. Stoll stopped and called 9-1-1 and brought Halsworth 

back to Mugsy’s when the police arrived. 

Police Investigation and Initial Arrest of Appellants 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) Deputy Mark Noel was the 

first to arrive at Mugsy’s at approximately 6:00 a.m. in response to the 9-1-1 call. He 

entered Mugsy’s through the broken window and discovered Campanelli’s body lying 

face up inside the door. There was a lot of blood around the body and on the railing wall. 

A discharged fire extinguisher and broken pool cues were close by. A trail of blood lead 

from Campanelli to the ATM machine and then continued outside down the sidewalk and 

into the parking lot of the building next door. 

 

4 Halsworth’s cell phone records indicated that two calls were made to 9-1-1 at 

3:04 a.m. and 3:05 a.m. on February 26, 2006. 

5 An analysis of the hard drive from the computer located in the back office 

indicated that several attempts were made between 4:03 a.m. and 4:21 a.m. on 

February 26, 2006, to download a telephone program through “Google.com” and 

“PChelp911.com.” 
7 

 LACSD Homicide Detective Steven Lankford was assigned to investigate the 

crimes. He observed a lot of blood on the fire extinguisher and a white substance which 

indicated the fire extinguisher had been discharged on and near the body. A straight-edge 

knife was found by Campanelli’s shoulder and a folding knife by his feet. A necklace 

with a feather charm was recovered on the floor near a plastic beer crate. A blood trail 

and partial shoe prints led from the ramp area to the necklace and down the counter of the 

bar. There was blood on the counter and on an empty knife sheath. The straight-edge 

knife found by Campanelli fit into the sheath. The bar looked like it had been ransacked 

but there were no signs of forced entry into the tool room or the back office. Large pry 

bars and sledgehammers were lying on the ground in front of the ATM machine and 

Detective Lankford found it strange that robbers would have brought such large tools 

with them. Detective Lankford did not see pry marks at the cash register or on the safe in 

the back office and concluded that the perpetrators had access to the cash register and a 

key to the safe. 

 Christopher arrived at the bar while Detective Lankford was investigating the 

crime scene. He appeared nervous and his hands were shaking. His left hand was 

swollen and he had fresh abrasions on his forehead and right arm. He unlocked the front 

door with his key which Detective Lankford kept. 

 Detective Lankford interviewed Halsworth on the afternoon of February 26, 2006. 

She told him that she believed the assailants sounded like appellants, Christopher and 

Ralph. She reiterated that belief in a subsequent interview on March 19, 2006, and later 

told him that she was certain the voices belonged to appellants. 

 Detective Lankford first met Ralph on February 28, 2006, and noticed that on his 

right arm he had a feather tattoo which looked similar to the feather charm Detective 

Lankford recovered from the bar. Ralph had an abrasion on the inside of his right arm 

and also wore a necklace with an Indian-style pendant. 
8 

 On March 2, 2006, Christopher reported his Chevy Blazer stolen and that the last 

time he drove it was on February 25 at 9:00 p.m. He told Deputy Noel that both front 

and back license plates were on the vehicle. 

 On March 10, 2006, appellants, Cindy, Pilarski, and Turner, were removing 

property from Mugsy’s and placing it in a U-Haul truck, when appellants were taken into 

custody. On March 14, 2006, appellants were released pending further investigation. 

 On March 23, 2006, LACSD Deputy Timothy Vander Leek stopped Pilarski who 

was driving a vehicle with an expired license registration tag. The vehicle was 

impounded because Pilarski did not have a valid driver’s license. Deputy Vander Leek 

found Christopher’s license plate inside Pilarski’s vehicle while conducting a routine 

inventory of its contents. 

 On March 25, 2006, LACSD Deputy Timothy Hemphill found Christopher’s 

Chevy Blazer in an isolated mountainous area in Val Verde. The ignition had been 

“punched” out so that the vehicle could be started with a screwdriver or similar tool. 

Deputy Hemphill had the vehicle towed because it had been flagged by the homicide unit 

for fingerprinting if recovered. 

Appellants’ Rearrest 

On August 15, 2008, Detective Lankford directed that appellants be rearrested. 

Christopher was arrested in Arizona where he was living at the time. Ralph was arrested 

in Santa Clarita. Christopher was extradited back to Los Angeles County on August 27, 

2008. Beginning on that date, Detective Lankford monitored all of appellants’ and 

Cindy’s telephone calls. 

Appellants’ Admissions to Others 

 1. Cindy 

Cindy told appellants many times that “the thing that freaked [her] out the most” 

was hearing Campanelli “gurgling through his blood, pleading for his life.” She lied 

when first interviewed by Detective Lankford because Christopher had sent her 

threatening messages stating that if she said anything she “would end up like you know 
9 

who, gurgle, gurgle, gurgle.” Cindy was arrested on August 27, 2008, and charged as an 

aider and abettor to murder. She agreed to tell Detective Lankford about appellants’ 

conduct and admissions before and after they committed the crimes at Mugsy’s. 

 Appellants arrived at Cindy’s trailer on the morning of February 26, 2006, after 

committing the crimes at Mugsy’s. They had changed out of their clothing and Ralph 

stated they had dumped their blood-soiled clothing in the back of an El Camino truck 

owned by Gary Scott Weightman. Ralph said he hid until the victims came into the bar 

and then he whacked Halsworth over the head with a pool stick and placed a plastic crate 

over her head. Christopher stated his Chevy Blazer was “full of Lou’s blood and he was 

planning on having it stolen.” He called Pilarski who was to have a gang member 

“torch” the Blazer after making it look like it was stolen. Christopher told Cindy how he 

attacked Campanelli. He stated he “stabbed him in the side, that he slit his throat ear to 

ear, he broke his neck, broke his back, beat him, and bashed his head in with a fire 

extinguisher.” Appellants stated they tried to make the crimes “look like a robbery gone 

bad.” Christopher devised a story that he, his brother, and Cindy would tell the police. 

They were to say they closed the bar as usual and all three of them went to Cindy’s house 

to discuss problems with their relationships. 

 A few days later, Ralph and Cindy drove to Weightman’s house and pulled a bag 

of bloody clothing from Weightman’s car. Ralph told Cindy on a later date that he 

burned the clothing. Both appellants and Cindy regularly discussed the details of the 

murder and assault to keep their stories straight, and Christopher wanted the three of 

them to get a tattoo to show their solidarity. 

 Cindy visited Christopher in Arizona prior to his arrest. He gave her a suicide 

letter in which he claimed responsibility for the crimes. Ralph took the letter from Cindy 

and put it in his safe. Ralph told Cindy while they were in lockup together that he had 

burned the letter. Appellants told Cindy that if they stuck with the story they devised 

they would get through it and “walk on this murder.” 
10 

 Pursuant to an agreement that she would testify honestly at trial in exchange for a 

three-year sentence, Cindy pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. At the time of trial, 

her divorce from Ralph was pending. 

 2. Savino Pilarski 

On February 25, 2006, Campanelli accused Pilarski of sleeping with Halsworth 

and an argument ensued. Christopher told Pilarski “You gotta go, you gotta go; you are 

going to mess everything up tonight.” Pilarski left before midnight. The following day 

at around 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. Christopher called Pilarski and told him Campanelli had been 

murdered. Christopher asked Pilarski to have his friend “Frost,” a Val Verde gang 

member, get rid of and torch his Chevy Blazer as soon as possible. Pilarski agreed and 

drove Frost to where Christopher had parked the Blazer. 

 Pursuant to Christopher’s request, Pilarski spoke to Halsworth numerous times in 

the days following the murder and assault at Mugsy’s. He sought out the information she 

told the police and relayed it to Christopher. He tried to convince her that appellants did 

not hurt Campanelli. Christopher told Pilarski that Campanelli “fought hard” and the 

murder did not go as planned. After his initial arrest in March 2006, Christopher talked 

about leaving town. A few weeks later Christopher found out that his Blazer was at a 

Sheriff’s impound yard and had not been burned. 

 Ralph also called Pilarski on February 26, 2006, and told him to get rid of all the 

drugs and drug paraphernalia at Cindy’s house and at his house and apartment because he 

anticipated that he and his brother were going to be arrested. Ralph discussed the details 

of the murder with Pilarski on numerous occasions. He said he stabbed Campanelli “over 

and over again” and his brother tried to break Campanelli’s neck because he would not 

die. He described how Campanelli pleaded for his life and “gurgled” when he choked on 

his own blood. Ralph also said that he and his brother wore masks and disguised their 

voices while committing the crimes. In June 2007, Christopher asked Pilarski and Ralph 

to visit him in Arizona. Christopher was unhappy and confronted his brother about 
11 

talking too much about the murder. He punched his brother in the jaw and told him to 

“shut his fucking mouth.” 

 In 2006, Pilarski lied when interviewed by Detective Lankford with the intention 

of protecting himself and appellants from prosecution. In 2010, Pilarski was interviewed 

again by Detective Lankford and was truthful. He remained good friends with appellants 

throughout the trial and testified reluctantly pursuant to a subpoena. 

 3. Elissa MacGregor 

In February 2008, Elissa MacGregor and Lee “Rusty” Block moved into Ralph’s 

house. MacGregor began dating Ralph even though she knew he was still married to 

Cindy. Ralph told MacGregor the following details of the murder of Campanelli: Cindy 

acted as the lookout; he and his brother destroyed the bar to make it look like a robbery; 

they hid inside the bar and then jumped Campanelli and repeatedly stabbed him but “the 

fucking guy did not die easily”; they were not concerned about Halsworth because they 

knocked her out and covered her head. Ralph talked about the murder and used the 

phrase “gurgle, gurgle” in front of MacGregor and her friends so often that she had to ask 

him to stop. 

 Prior to his rearrest, Ralph told MacGregor he was worried about a necklace that 

contained his DNA that he left behind at the bar during the murder. While incarcerated 

he told MacGregor about a letter he kept in his safe that his brother had given Cindy. He 

told MacGregor to burn the letter if she found it. He also told her to tell Cindy “CRC 

always” which he told MacGregor meant “Chris Ralph and Cindy always.” Ralph asked 

MacGregor to get police reports about the murder from his father and give them to their 

neighbor Kevin Jak’s nephew, who was a San Fernando Valley gang member. The 

reports concerned two witnesses, “Dana” and “Caryn,” and Ralph said they were both 

snitches. He said that Jak’s nephew and another gang member would influence the 

witnesses not to testify. MacGregor left a copy of the police reports at Jak’s house for his 

nephew. 
12 

 4. Caryn Wearing 

Caryn Wearing worked as a bartender at Mugsy’s from September 2005 until 

Campanelli’s murder. Ralph told her he was upset that Campanelli stopped him from 

becoming a partner in Mugsy’s. In early 2007, Ralph told Wearing about the murder and 

said he was relieved to be able to get the murder “off his chest.” He was confident Cindy 

would not snitch because she was his wife and she was afraid of him and his brother. 

Ralph told Wearing that he was concerned about a necklace that was found at the bar. 

 5. Dana Felton 

Between June and December 2007, Dana Felton rented a room in Kevin Jak’s 

house, which was across the street from Ralph’s house. Ralph told Felton substantially 

the same details about the crimes as he had told Cindy, Pilarski, Weightman, MacGregor, 

and Wearing. He used the phrase “gurgle, gurgle” to describe the sound Campanelli 

made when dying, and also told her he was concerned about losing a necklace at the 

crime scene that might implicate him. 

 Ralph told Felton that he felt no remorse about killing Campanelli because he was 

a “scumbag” and he was doing society a favor by killing him. He was confident he was 

going to get away with the crimes because he had been arrested and released. He said the 

case was closed and he could not be arrested and prosecuted because “double-jeopardy” 

applied to his arrest. 

 6. Kevin Jak 

Ralph told Kevin Jak substantially the same details of the crime as he had told 

others. He told Jak that they had made a mistake and someone was going to figure out 

that a key to Mugsy’s was needed to lock the door. He was also worried about the 

necklace he lost because it could connect him to the crime. 

 7. Gary Scott Weightman 

 Gary Scott Weightman grew up with Ralph. He testified that in February 2006 

Ralph knocked on his door, he heard him say “fuck, fuck, fuck,” and saw him walk 

toward his Blazer when Weightman did not answer. In March 2006, after Ralph was 
13 

released he confessed to Weightman that he and his brother killed Campanelli. While in 

jail awaiting trial, Ralph told Weightman that he thought he was going to get away with 

the murder. 

 8. Lee Kelley “Rusty” Block 

 In late 2007, Ralph told Lee Kelley Block about the murder and assault and 

provided the same major details as before. In 2008, Ralph spoke more frequently about 

the Campanelli murder and in a more casual manner. He said he was “untouchable” for 

the murder because he had “the Rosas luck.” 

Appellants’ Jailhouse Admissions 

 On August 27, 2008, during a recorded jailhouse visit, Christopher told his father 

that Cindy was in custody in Santa Clarita. He instructed his father to tell Cindy “CRC 

always from Ralph and Chris and stick by it.” 

 On September 3, 2008, appellants were recorded in a conversation together 

discussing Cindy. Ralph noted that Cindy had a lawyer and said, “I hope she stays true.” 

In reference to Campanelli, Ralph whispered, “We should have mother fuckin’ buried 

him personally.” Christopher responded, “Yeah, shoulda, coulda, woulda,” and added 

“CRC Bro.” 

 On September 9, 2009, appellants were recorded in a conversation discussing 

Pilarski. Appellants were aware that Detective Lankford had found him but did not 

believe he would “break.” Ralph suggested contacting Pilarski but Christopher said they 

should not because the police would use it against them. 

 Detective Lankford seized a number of letters appellants sent to each other while 

in jail. Appellants referred to each other as “bro” similar to how the killers had addressed 

each other during the crimes. In the letters Ralph talked about Campanelli’s blood in 

Christopher’s vehicle, Pilarski’s arrest while in possession of the license plate, and 

references to Pilarski’s gang member friend, Frost. Appellants tried to formulate a secret 

code using letters and numbers to avoid detection by law enforcement. Ralph explained 

the code in one letter to his brother and used an example to show how the code worked. 
14 

Autopsy 

Dr. Raffi Djabourian, a deputy medical examiner with the Los Angeles County 

Coroner’s Office, performed an autopsy on Campanelli’s body on February 28, 2006. He 

found extensive blunt force trauma injuries all over the body with the most extensive to 

the head and face. He also found sharp force trauma resulting from a weapon or 

instrument like a knife going through the body. Campanelli suffered a skull fracture 

similar to a pedestrian struck by a car and not typically associated with a punch or a fall. 

The fracture was consistent with being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher. The 

extensive trauma Campanelli suffered likely shook his brain and resulted in significant 

brain swelling. One portion of the brain had swollen to the point of bulging out of the 

skull. There was blood in Campanelli’s lungs which meant he aspirated blood instead of 

air into his lungs that would have made him feel like he was drowning in his own blood. 

There were several stab wounds to Campanelli’s neck and scalp and almost all the sharp 

force injuries were inflicted before he died. Dr. Djabourian concluded the manner of 

death was homicide and the cause of death was blunt cranial facial trauma or trauma to 

the head and face. The multiple sharp force injuries were contributing factors to his 

death. 

Forensic Evidence 

LACSD senior criminalist with the sheriff’s scientific services bureau, Joseph 

Cavaleri, examined Christopher’s Chevy Blazer. He detected blood on a car seat cover 

found in the back of the truck and based on its wear and tear pattern determined it had 

been removed from the driver’s side. Cavaleri also found powder residue on the steering 

wheel and in the interior of the vehicle. The powder residue was consistent with 

someone having discharged a fire extinguisher prior to driving the vehicle. 

 George Hou, a senior criminalist with LACSD, performed the DNA analysis in 

this case. He testified that the profiles of Campanelli and Christopher were found in the 

blood stain on the car seat cover recovered from the Chevy Blazer. He also testified that 
15 

the feather charm and necklace found in Mugsy’s after the murder contained DNA 

profiles of Campanelli and Ralph. 

Defense Case 

 No evidence was presented on behalf of appellants. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Admission of Autopsy and Crime Scene Photographs 

 Ralph filed a motion in limine to exclude multiple crime scene and autopsy 

photographs of Campanelli that were “cumulative, redundant, and thus prejudicial.” The 

trial court reviewed the photographs and overruled Ralph’s objection. Ralph contends 

that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs that were 

“extraordinarily gory and horrifying.” He argues that the trial court should have excluded 

the photographs pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 because they were only 

“marginally relevant.”6

 “[M]urder is seldom pretty, and pictures, testimony and physical evidence in such 

a case are always unpleasant . . . .” (People v. Long (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 680, 689, 

fn. omitted.) “The admission of photographs of a victim lies within the broad discretion 

of the trial court when a claim is made that they are unduly gruesome or inflammatory.” 

(People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 133; see also People v. Coleman (1988) 46 

Cal.3d 749, 776.) The court’s exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed on appeal 

unless the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial 

effect. (Crittenden, supra, at p. 134; People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1282.) If 

the photographs, though “‘gruesome,’” would clarify a medical examiner’s testimony, 

then they may be admitted in the court’s discretion. (Coleman, supra, at p. 776.) 

Autopsy photographs may therefore be admitted as pertinent because they show the 

‘“nature and placement of the fatal wounds’” or support the prosecution’s theory of how 

 

6 Evidence Code section 352 provides: “The court in its discretion may exclude 

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its 

admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger 

of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” 
16 

the murders were committed or illustrate the testimony of the coroner and percipient 

witnesses. (People v. Loker (2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 705.) 

 We have reviewed the photographs in question7 and conclude the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in admitting them. They accurately depicted Campanelli at the 

scene and at the autopsy. 

 The photographs were relevant to assist the jurors in understanding the medical 

testimony about the autopsy. (See People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 713 

overruled on another ground by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390.) Even if the 

photographs were cumulative to the medical testimony about the autopsy, “this . . . does 

not demonstrate the trial court abused its broad discretion. ‘[P]rosecutors . . . are not 

obliged to prove their case with evidence solely from live witnesses; the jury is entitled to 

see details of the victims’ bodies to determine if the evidence supports the prosecution’s 

theory of the case.’” (People v. Roldan, supra, at p. 713.) 

 The photographs were also relevant to corroborate the fact and substance of 

Ralph’s admissions to numerous witnesses. In particular, the photographs served to 

corroborate Cindy’s testimony and rebut allegations that she lied to Detective Lankford in 

order to get a deal from the prosecution or because she was angry with Ralph because he 

lied about his marital status. 

 Not only were the photographs relevant and admissible under Evidence Code 

section 352, their admission did not violate Ralph’s federal constitutional rights. 

(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [error will be deemed harmless if 

reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have 

found defendant guilty absent the error]; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) 

 The other evidence of Ralph’s guilt was overwhelming. Ralph was angry because 

Campanelli refused his offer to become a partner in Mugsy’s and he and his brother 

openly discussed their plan to get rid of Campanelli. On the night of the murder, Ralph 

 

7 Crime scene photographs (People’s exhibits 7, 8, and 53–56); autopsy photographs 

(People’s exhibits 67–72, and 74). 
17 

told Cindy that “they were going to take [Campanelli] out and kill him.” Halsworth’s 

description of the murder and assault was corroborated by Cindy who was in the back 

office. Furthermore, Ralph’s detailed descriptions of how he committed the crimes were 

corroborated by Dr. Djabourian’s testimony of Campanelli’s injuries and the manner in 

which they were inflicted. In the hours immediately following the crimes both appellants 

discussed with Cindy their plans to destroy evidence linking them to the crimes. 

Christopher made plans to have his vehicle stolen and then torched. Ralph disposed of 

the bloody clothes they wore during the crimes. Following the crimes, Ralph confessed 

his involvement to Cindy, Pilarski, Weightman, MacGregor, Wearing, Felton, Jak, and 

Block. He often referenced the gurgling sound which Campanelli made as he choked on 

his own blood. He confessed to so many people and on so many occasions that 

Christopher confronted and ordered him to “shut his mouth.” In addition to his repeated 

confessions, other evidence identified Ralph as the perpetrator. He had a tattoo depicting 

the same charm and necklace that police found at the scene and which contained his 

DNA. He also had a fresh abrasion to his arm when he met with Detective Lankford 

shortly after the murder and assault. In jailhouse communications with Christopher, 

Ralph expressed concern that Cindy and Pilarski would not remain loyal to him 

demonstrating his consciousness of guilt. 

II. Admission of Note Shown During Jailhouse Visit 

 A. Contention 

Ralph contends that the trial court’s admission of a note that his mother held up to 

the glass partition during a jailhouse visit was an error that violated his right to due 

process. 

B. Background 

LACSD Deputy Michael Kelley testified that on November 15, 2008, during a 

jailhouse visit from appellants’ parents, he confiscated a note held up to the glass 

partition by appellants’ mother Linda Lee Rosas, for Ralph to read. The note stated: 
18 

“Neclace (sic)–What did you say to Lankf (sic). In first interview when you were first 

arrested.”8

 Ralph’s defense counsel moved to exclude the note. He argued the note should be 

excluded as inadmissible hearsay because there was no evidence that Ralph wrote the 

note or responded to it such that it could be considered an adoptive admission. He argued 

the note was irrelevant and Deputy Kelley’s testimony should be excluded. The 

prosecutor argued the note was not hearsay and was not offered for a hearsay purpose. 

The note was relevant to show that Ralph and his parents had discussed the necklace and 

what he might have said to Detective Lankford. The trial court overruled defense 

counsel’s objection to the admission of the note stating: “The court finds, under the 

circumstances of this case where there is evidence that a necklace was found at the scene, 

that there was DNA testing conducted with respect to that necklace, that [appellant] 

Ralph Rosas discussed the necklace with a number of people, and there was testimony in 

this court regarding that, that it is more probative than prejudicial. So the [note] and the 

statement by the Deputy will remain.” Ralph’s defense counsel made a motion for a 

mistrial, which was denied. 

 Ralph’s defense counsel requested that the note be excluded when the exhibits 

were being discussed at the close of the evidence. The court denied the request finding 

the note was “more probative than prejudicial” and that it was not hearsay because it was 

not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. With respect to the note, the parties 

agreed on the language for the instruction, and the trial court instructed the jury with 

CALJIC No. 2.09 modified as follows: “Certain evidence was admitted for a limited 

purpose. As to People’s Exhibit 114 it has been admitted for a purpose other than the 

truth of the matter, contained in the writing itself.” 

 

8 People’s exhibit 114. 
19 

C. Analysis 

Ralph contends the court erred by admitting the note. He contends admitting the 

note for a nonhearsay purpose was error because the prosecution “[attempted] to prove 

the truth of the matter asserted–that the ‘necklace’ was of concern to appellant.” He 

further argues that the note was “completely irrelevant” and its admission was 

prejudicial. 

 With respect to hearsay, Evidence Code section 1200, subdivision (b) states: 

“hearsay evidence is inadmissible.” Hearsay evidence is defined as “evidence of a 

statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is 

offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.” (Evid. Code, § 1200, subd. (a).) We 

review a challenge to the admission of evidence pursuant to a hearsay exception under 

the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review. (People v. Pirwani (2004) 119 

Cal.App.4th 770, 787.) A trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the 

judgment is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, 

capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. 

(People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1113; People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 

540–541 [trial court’s determination that preliminary facts exist to permit admission of a 

statement under an exception to the hearsay rule will not be disturbed if supported by 

substantial evidence].) 

 The note was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted therein, that is, it was not offered to establish that Ralph made a statement to 

Detective Lankford during his first interview after his initial arrest. The note was 

admitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating Ralph’s consciousness of guilt. 

Somebody had discussed the significance of the necklace with appellant’s parents and the 

note provided context for admissions that Ralph made to Wearing, Felton, and Jak. The 

hearsay objection was properly overruled. 

 To the extent the argument is relevance, we agree that only relevant evidence is 

admissible. (Evid. Code, § 350.) ‘“The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends 
20 

“logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference” to establish material facts . . . .’” 

(People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337.) Here, there was evidence that a necklace 

was found at the scene of the crime, DNA testing was conducted on that necklace, and 

Ralph mentioned to a number of witnesses that he was worried that a necklace he lost 

could implicate him in the crime. Thus, the evidence was relevant. 

Assuming, arguendo, that Ralph is correct and the note should not have been 

admitted, he failed to demonstrate that such error was prejudicial. The standard of review 

governing the erroneous admission of evidence is whether the error was harmless under 

People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 837. This case was not decided by the 

admission of the jailhouse note. The evidence of Ralph’s guilt in this case, consisting of 

his conduct before and after the crimes, his confession to at least eight witnesses, and the 

recorded conversations and letters between Ralph and his brother Christopher, was 

overwhelming. 

 In light of all the other evidence in support of the two charged crimes, it is clear 

beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found Ralph guilty absent the 

alleged error.

III. Appellant Christopher 

We appointed counsel to represent Christopher on appeal. After examination of 

the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On 

September 13, 2012, we advised Christopher that he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response 

has been received. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Christopher’s appellate 

counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We 

conclude that Christopher has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review 

of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 

278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)
21 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgments are affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. 

_____________________, J. *

 FERNS 

We concur: 

____________________________, Acting P. J. 

 ASHMANN-GERST 

____________________________, J. 

 CHAVEZ

 

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.