Opinion ID: 1122530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Robbery and Burglary Issues

Text: Defendant raises several claims concerning the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence of robbery and burglary. For the most part, the arguments focus on whether property belonging to the victims was taken during the alleged robbery and whether an intent to rob existed at the time of the burglary. We conclude that none of the claims has merit. [25]
(15) Defendant argues the trial court erred in rejecting his attempt to exclude testimony by Lori's mother, Charlotte Martinez, about Lori's habit of storing money in baby food jars and envelopes. (See Evid. Code, § 1105.) [26] The prosecution introduced this evidence to bolster the inference that money was present in the victims' apartment at the time of the crimes. An inference that defendant took the money was raised, in turn, by evidence that two baby jars marked spending money were found empty in the apartment after the crimes, and that defendant was carrying a cash-filled envelope after the murders. We see no error. The question whether habit evidence is admissible is essentially one of threshold relevancy [and] is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citations.] ( People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1178 [9 Cal. Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146] [ McPeters ].) Here, ample evidence of repeated instances of similar conduct supported the court's determination. ( Ibid. ) Mrs. Martinez indicated that she regularly visited her daughter's apartment in the six months before the crimes and saw money stored in jars and envelopes. Lori's conduct was evidently prompted by an ongoing concern over money management and her mother's advice that she adopt a system for segregating funds. Contrary to what defendant suggests, evidence that Lori moved the jars from the kitchen to the bedroom a week before the murders in preparation for the victims' impending move does not negate, as a matter of law, the finding that she habitually stored money therein. (See McPeters, supra, at pp. 1166, 1178 [victim's habit of earmarking funds for certain purposes by carrying cash in envelopes].)
(16) Defendant argues that evidence adduced at trial failed to establish the corpus delicti of robbery and burglary exclusive of his extrajudicial statement to Sharon admitting that he did it for money. Of course, the corpus delicti rule requires only a prima facie showing that a crime occurred and does not require independent proof that the defendant was the perpetrator. ( People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 403-404 [276 Cal. Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221].) We conclude that even in the absence of defendant's statement, there was sufficient evidence not only to satisfy the corpus delicti rule but to sustain the jury's findings that defendant murdered the Rainwaters in the course of committing a robbery and burglary. Several facts indicated that defendant planned to rob the Rainwaters at the time he was seen entering their apartment. He knew they managed the complex and collected rent from the other tenants. The crimes occurred soon after the first of the month, a time when rent is commonly due. A few hours beforehand, defendant obtained the gun and duct tape that were used to subdue the victims. There was no legitimate reason for defendant to be at the victims' residence at the time. Other evidence established that money was taken from the Rainwaters during the eight-hour ordeal. In addition to the habit evidence discussed above, the testimony established that four cash-filled jars and a greeting card containing six $20 bills were seen in the apartment the day before the attack began. Afterwards, no money was found in the damaged card or the two remaining jars. The jury could also reasonably infer that the victims were robbed of the roll of bills that Lori had attempted to use as a down payment on a new apartment earlier the same day. Defendant incorrectly suggests that a robbery cannot be found absent evidence of the precise amount possessed by the victim at the time. (See McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1183.) Defendant emphasizes that crime scene investigators found money in Lori's purse ($50) and in envelopes labeled so as to suggest that the money was intended for church ($22) and collected from a tenant ($235). Defendant speculates that this was the same money that witnesses had previously seen in the baby food jars and greeting card, and that no money was therefore stolen from these two places. However, there was no evidence money was moved in the manner suggested by defendant, and such a theory seems improbable in light of Lori's careful practice of segregating funds. In any event, the jury could have premised its robbery determination solely on evidence that the roll of bills intended for the victims' new apartment was taken. Defendant also suggests that the presence of any money in the apartment after the crimes necessarily means that none was taken. We disagree. The jury was aware of such competing inferences and presumably considered them in rendering its verdict. The jury's robbery determination is also supported by evidence that defendant had a large and unexplained amount of cash in his possession several hours after the murders. Sharon testified that he bought cocaine from Reuben Rangel with $400 or $500 which he had not saved from past drug sales or his low-paying job. Defendant separately carried this money in an envelope  evidence linking him to Lori's habit of placing money in envelopes. Defendant insists that Sharon's testimony about the drug deal with Rangel was unreliable. However, the jury heard and presumably considered evidence which might bear on her credibility, including her prior criminal history and Rangel's contradictory testimony that the transaction occurred before the Rainwater crimes. We do not find Sharon's testimony to be inherently improbable. Finally, the jury could infer from the circumstances surrounding the shootings that the victims were killed to prevent them from escaping the scene of a violent robbery and identifying the perpetrator. Hence, defendant is incorrect in suggesting that there is no evidence to suggest the murders occurred during the commission of an underlying felony.