People v. Gaspar

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CARLOS GASPAR, Defendant and Appellant.

B322428

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

November 7, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. TA151831, Tammy Ryu, Judge.

John A. Colucci, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Gary A Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

RUBIN P. J.

Juan Carlos Gaspar appeals from a judgment that sentences him to 25 years to life in state prison for first degree murder. Gaspar contends there was insufficient evidence the murder was willful, deliberate, or premeditated. He also contends the trial court's imperfect self-defense instruction was deficient. We affirm.

FACTS

1. The Crime

On April 9, 2020, just before 7:00 p.m., Juan Gonzalez was exiting the Home Depot parking lot in Carson with his wife, Luz Gonzalez, when Luz drew his attention to a man "just stomping and kicking" something on the ground.^[1] Juan turned back into the parking lot to "see what was going on." When the Gonzalezes realized that it was a person lying on the ground, Luz urged Juan to help the victim. At trial, the Gonzalezes identified Gaspar as the perpetrator.

Juan stopped their car approximately 20 or 30 feet away and observed Gaspar continue to kick the victim in the head. The victim lay on the ground, unmoving, with a bicycle between his legs. Juan approached to within seven feet of Gaspar and said, "Stop kicking him. You are going to kill him." Gaspar responded, "Fuck it. I'll kill him." Gaspar then rifled through the victim's backpack but did not take it from him and resumed kicking the victim in the head. After Juan told him to stop a second time, Gaspar asked if Juan "wanted to get down," meaning fight. Juan said, "Hey I'm not on the ground. Let's do it." But as Juan walked closer, Gaspar backed away to a nearby bus stop, where he remained until the police arrived.

In the meantime, Luz called 911. The Gonzalezes remained on the scene until the police arrived and arrested Gaspar at the bus stop. After several weeks in the hospital, the victim died. Gaspar was charged with one count of murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a).

2. The Trial

The prosecution presented testimony from the Gonzalezes, the responding officers, and the medical examiner who conducted the victim's autopsy. The medical examiner testified the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. Although the victim had had a prior neurosurgical procedure to the left side of his head that may have made him more susceptible to head injuries, the medical examiner was of the opinion that the prior injury did not contribute to his death. Surveillance video of the Home Depot parking lot corroborated the Gonzalezes' description of the sequence of events. The original video and an enhanced version (i.e., zoomed in to magnify the images) was shown to the jury with the investigating officer narrating the events in the video. Although grainy, the video depicts a person riding a bicycle in the parking lot and stopping to speak to another person. There is then an altercation between the two figures in the video; the figure on the bicycle falls. The other person walks away from the cyclist, who is now on the ground, and returns at least twice to continue the altercation. A third person, presumably Juan Gonzalez, arrives, stops and speaks to them, and the person who is upright walks to the nearby street. The video ends with the arrival of a police cruiser.

Gaspar testified on his own behalf. He did not deny the assault but asserted he acted in self-defense. He explained the victim was on a bicycle and approached him as he was waiting for the bus. The victim said something about "Marlotta and a Leen [sic]," which Gaspar did not understand. The victim also said he had a gun and told Gaspar to give him his belongings. Gaspar did not see a gun but believed it was in the victim's backpack. Gaspar hit the victim in the face and tried to pull the victim's backpack off him. At some point during their struggle, Gaspar fell to the ground. He immediately got back up and began to kick the victim, still fearing for his life.

Gaspar initially believed Juan "was with" the victim because he approached Gaspar from the back. Gaspar explained that was why he challenged Juan to a fight. Gaspar denied telling Juan, "Fuck it. I'll kill him." He testified he instead told Juan in Spanish that the victim had a gun. Gaspar also claimed he told the responding officer that the victim had a gun.

On rebuttal, the prosecution presented testimony from two officers on the scene who interacted with Gaspar. Neither recalled Gaspar telling them about a gun or a robbery. Gaspar later told a detective through a Spanish-speaking officer at the police station that he was angry because the victim had been making fun of him for "too long" about a person named Sharleen but Gaspar did not know a Sharleen. During this interview, Gaspar mentioned that he believed the victim had a gun in his backpack but admitted the victim never reached into his backpack and Gaspar never saw a gun. Nor did Gaspar say the victim threatened him or tried to rob him. No weapons were found on either Gaspar or the victim.

The jury found Gaspar guilty of murder in the first degree. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life. The court further ordered victim restitution in the amount of $7,472.04 to the California Victim Compensation Board as reimbursement for the victim's funeral expenses along with other fines and fees. Gaspar timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

1. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jury's First Degree Murder Verdict

Gaspar contends there was insufficient evidence to support a first degree murder conviction and argues for a reduction to second degree murder. We conclude the record reflects substantial evidence of a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.

A. Standard of Review and Legal Principles

" 'When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence - that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value - from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] We determine 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] In so doing, a reviewing court '" 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.'" '" (People v. Morales (2020) 10 Cal.5th 76, 88.)

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) If the murder is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated," it is first degree murder. (Id., § 189, subd. (a).)"' "An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse."' [Citations.] 'The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly....'" (People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012, 1027 (Potts).) "[P]remeditation and deliberation is not synonymous with malice aforethought . . . it requires 'substantially more reflection.' [Citation.] Clearly, there must be some evidence that the defendant actually engaged in such reflection, and not merely had the time to do so." (People v. Boatman (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1270.)

The Supreme Court in People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27 identified three categories of evidence as "pertinent to the determination of premeditation and deliberation: (1) planning activity, (2) motive, and (3) manner of killing." (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125, citing to Anderson, at pp. 26-27.) The Anderson court observed that first degree murder convictions may be upheld when there is "extremely strong" evidence of planning or there is evidence of motive in conjunction with planning or manner of killing. (Anderson, at p. 27.)

In the years since Anderson, the Supreme Court has" 'emphasized that its guidelines are descriptive and neither normative nor exhaustive, and that reviewing courts need not accord them any particular weight.'" (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 324.) Anderson provides "a framework to aid in appellate review," but it does not "define the elements of first degree murder or alter the substantive law of murder in any way." (People v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1125.)

B. Analysis

Gaspar argues there is no evidence of planning, manner of killing, or motive. The record demonstrates otherwise.

As to planning, Gaspar contends the evidence shows his encounter with the victim was unforeseen: they simply happened upon one another in the Home Depot parking lot; Gaspar was unarmed; the assault came suddenly; and Gaspar did not know the victim beforehand.

While this is one interpretation of the evidence, it is one rejected by the jury. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Here, Gaspar had time to engage in planning activity during the altercation. The surveillance video showed Gaspar walked...