Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Felony-Murder Conviction and the Robbery-Murder Special Circumstance

Text: Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for felony murder and the special circumstance finding that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery and therefore his due process and Eighth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution were violated. He maintains that the evidence, at most, creates an unsubstantiated suspicion that [he] behaved in a manner which could constitute the elements of robbery. He argues there was insufficient evidence that the victim was actually robbed; that if he was robbed, defendant was the perpetrator; and if defendant was the perpetrator, that he formed the intent to steal before or during the use of force. The applicable standard of review is well settled: To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 553, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 802, 58 P.3d 931, quoting People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1128, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 33 P.3d 450; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 317-320, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.) `If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.' ( People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 933, 251 Cal.Rptr. 467, 760 P.2d 996, quoting People v. Hillery (1965) 62 Cal.2d 692, 702, 44 Cal.Rptr. 30, 401 P.2d 382.) The standard of review is the same when the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. ( People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) We conclude that substantial evidence supports the robbery-murder conviction and the special circumstance finding. The prosecution introduced evidence that defendant was the last person seen with the victim. The victim had cashed a tax refund check in the amount of $1,200 two days before the murder and in the hours before the murder, the victim boasted, in the presence of defendant, that he was going to Mexico the next morning and was taking $3,000 with him. Defendant was left alone with the victim when Vasquez, Perez, and Macias left. They returned approximately 10 minutes later, at which time the victim was dead. When the police arrived, they found the victim's left pants pocket turned inside out with bloodstains on the interior of the pocket. He was wearing jewelry and his other pants pocket, which was undisturbed, contained approximately $80. The $3,000 was never recovered, and defendant, who was unemployed, had $100 on his person when he was arrested the next day. Moreover, defendant was linked to the murder by his palm print, made in wet blood that was consistent with that of the victim, discovered on the Jennings .22-caliber handgun found in the Monte Carlo. Based upon this evidence, the jury could reasonably have found that the victim possessed a large amount of cash on the night he was killed and that defendant stayed behind after Vasquez, Macias, and Perez left in order to rob the victim of the money. The victim's bloodstained, turned-out pocket supports the inference that, after shooting the victim, defendant retrieved the money from the victim's pants pocket. (See, e.g., People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 230, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 252, 72 P.3d 1222 [sufficient circumstantial evidence supported robbery murder conviction based on evidence that the victim usually carried several $1 bills, no paper currency was found on the victim or in his taxicab, and defendant had seven $1 bills on his person when he was arrested].) Defendant additionally argues that even if sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction for robbery murder, the evidence was nonetheless insufficient to support the robbery-murder special circumstance. Noting that the robbery must not have been merely incidental to the killing ( see People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 62, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468 ( Green ), overruled on other grounds in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834, fn. 3, 226 Cal.Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99), defendant argues there was insufficient evidence establishing that he killed the victim in order to advance the independent felonious purpose of robbery. To prove the robbery-murder special circumstance, the prosecution was required to prove that defendant formed the intent to steal before or while killing the victim. (See, e.g., People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 127, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166.) We apply the same standard used to determine the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the robbery-murder conviction. ( People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1010, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519 ( Cunningham ).) Defendant relies heavily on two cases in support of his contention, but neither case is apposite. In People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843, overruled on another ground in In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 543-544, footnote 5, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 446, 887 P.2d 527, the victim was killed in a public bathhouse while wearing only socks and shoes and the only property missing from his locker was a department store credit card. The defendant later attempted to use the credit card. The defendant told an acquaintance that he had been making money off `dates' with homosexuals and that he killed one ( Morris, at p. 11, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843); he gave no reason for the killing except that `he had to kill one.' ( Id. at p. 20, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843.) We held this evidence was insufficient to support the robbery-murder special circumstance. We noted that [t]he record contains no evidence that any personal property was in the victim's possession at the time of the murder, or that any personal property of the victim was ever recovered subsequent to the murder with the possible exception of the credit card. ( People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 20, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843, italics added.) That the murder did not occur during the commission of a robbery was supported by the fact the victim was not wearing any clothing when he was killed, and evidence existed that the defendant's motive for visiting the bathhouse was to prostitute himself. Similarly, in Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84, 931 P.2d 262, this court overturned a robbery conviction and robbery-murder special circumstance. In that case, the defendant was convicted of the rape, robbery, and murder of a prostitute. The defendant was apprehended coming out of the building where the murder took place and was immediately searched by the police. The police did not find any money or other property belonging to the victim, but did find a letter from a grocery store responding to the victim's request for a check-cashing card. In holding that this was insufficient evidence to uphold the robbery-murder special circumstance, this court explained that there was no evidence the defendant killed the victim for the purpose of obtaining the letter, or any evidence tending to show that the grocery's letter ... was so valuable to defendant that he would be willing to commit murder to obtain it. ( Id. at p. 35, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 84, 931 P.2d 262.) In the present case, there is ample evidence that the victim was robbed, that defendant remained behind after the others left in order to rob the victim, and that defendant killed the victim to accomplish that purpose. The evidence is sufficient to support defendant's conviction of felony murder, and the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding.