Part 4: Guided Practice Lesson 12 Answer Key, Who Is Russell Hitchcock's Wife, George Strait Concert Dallas, Johan Martin Viennoiserie, Nurses Week 2022 Theme, Articles P

The police officers confiscated a laptop computer, a combined printer-copier, a partial roll of stamps similar to those used on the second letter sent to the sheriff, an unopened label maker, file folders that had been marked with labels created with a label maker, and manila envelopes similar to the one used for the first letter. He said Paul Moore is the "sole inheritor of the Moore family fortune." And second, we will test the substantiality of that evidence in light of the entire record, that is to say, in light of the compelling circumstantial evidence that Peter, not Paul, blew up Roberto Ayala. In his view, the admission of such prejudicial evidence rendered the state proceedings fundamentally unfair and violated his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Clearly the jury was aware of which witnesses had been called by which side, and such a statement could not reasonably mislead any juror on that point.. 107 5th St, Colusa, CA. Paul Moore is currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. He had not been allowed to work on the farm for over 21 years. The trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion by admitting highly relevant evidence when the only prejudice is the fact the story Paul himself told was a damaging one. As a child he rigged his light switch; as a father he taught his son how to hardwire his car; as a farmer he designed a mud chisel, rice rollers, and a fertilizer aqua bar. "We've waited 25. But the document provided strong circumstantial evidence he secretly envied the position to which Roberto had ascended and the discomfort Roberto's presence continued to cause him. Without debating semantics, the point is that we must defer to the trial court's determination whether the evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative unless the court has strayed too far from what is reasonable and sound. I am military trained. We agree with the trial court that the document was therefore relevant to prove motive. "I don't imagine my clients will see anything of it," Sacramento lawyer Justin Gingery said. and plate number. His reputation in the community would make Peter the more likely suspect than Paul. Published: Jun 17, 2016 Total records: 5,262. Beyond those innocuous hobbies, he wiretapped a telephone and blew up a bomb. The investigators placed a GPS (global positioning system) device on his truck, devices that often malfunction. He felt mistreated by everyone, including Peter. Lynette Marie Clark. Colusa, CA. Roger made two police reports based on Peter's threats to physically assault him. At trial there was no evidence Paul climbed a telephone pole to attach a wire to the line or any other evidence as to how Paul actually wiretapped the telephone. Roger, along with his brother, Arlan, used to own Moore Brothers Farm in Colusa, California. We turn to counsel's arguments, the objections that were lodged, and the trial court's rationale in denying the defense request to make a surrebuttal argument and denying its later motion for a new trial. First three fuses, the device had dual triggers and detonators. January 28, 2023 (85 years old) View obituary. The Legislature therefore has declared that evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion. (Evid. Based on Peter's violent disposition and the threats he leveled at Roberto, among others, the rat trap YouTube video found on his computer, his basic understanding of electrical devices sufficient to enable him to install electric sprinkler systems, his familiarity with the field and with Roberto's responsibilities, his opportunity to plant the bomb, and his compelling motive to remove him from the farm, Paul argued that Peter planted the bomb that Roberto activated when he opened the electrical box to adjust the water levels on the rice field. Roger encouraged Roberto to seek a restraining order against Peter, but Roberto declined. History. Paul appears to have suffered more quietly than his cousin. The forensic testimony provided the most compelling evidence against Paul. Burial service, Funeral service, Memorial service, Cremation, Special service for veterans, Pre-arrangements, Grief support, Caskets & Vaults & Urns and more products . He noted that in a stack of paper, indentations can appear five pages down. A defendant's writings have been admitted to prove motive over defense objection. Recipients of payments . Paul Roger Moore was found guilty today of murdering Roberto Ayala. In The Court of Appeal of the State of California. According to the Colusa County Sun Herald, Paul Moores sentencing and conviction was upheld in 2016. Eduardo Ayala testified that he knew Peter characterized him and his coworkers as a lazy group of drug addicts and alcoholics who would ruin the Moore brothers' agricultural business. C075231 (Super. Without going as far as the prosecutor in overstating the probative value, therefore, we do conclude the risk of prejudice was so conspicuously slight that it did not substantially outweigh the probative value the explosion-making incident had in establishing that Paul did have some familiarity, even if rudimentary, with working with explosives. As they were driving, they noticed Paul's truck behind them. Colusa Cemetery District is owned and maintained by Colusa Cemetery District. Fill out this form to submit a Letter to the Editor. His trial lawyer provided excellent representation and advocacy. His son heard a loud explosion and saw his father on fire. Target two knows the Mexico connection and that is the reason 4 relocating n will not help target two. The settlement also included about $44,800 in worker's compensation payments. Obituaries from McNary-Moore Funeral Service in Colusa, California. For example, Roberto traveled with Peter to a seminar about operating a sod business, but when Peter expressed interest in purchasing a harvester, Roberto alerted Roger, and Roger disapproved of the purchase. The Oxygen-Acetylene Bomb: Similarly, the evidence that Paul had mixed oxygen with acetylene to produce an explosion when he was in his early to mid-twenties also had some probative value about his knowledge, even if primitive, of bomb making. 13.56.206.54 We disagree. There was no direct evidence of who designed, constructed, or placed the explosive device. On December 6 of 2011, agents searched Paul Moores home and found evidence linking him to the crime. I finally found the Ford, and now it is driven by some young guy, not the brother. Again, Paul's critique is the same: that is, the prosecutor grossly exaggerated his fascination with bomb making and extrapolated one incident into a proclivity to create multiple and more advanced explosive devices. All rights reserved. Half of the amount will go to. Whoever drew the diagram, he believed, was intimately familiar with the construction of that device.. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page. A friend read about his fingerprints on the indented sheet in a local newspaper and asked him about it when he called Paul in jail. We need not consider Paul's allegation that the accumulation of errors was prejudicial even if taken individually they were not. The indented sheet had his fingerprints all over it, the paper matched paper from his house, the ink matched ink in the printer from his house, the labels matched his labels, and the fishing line attached to the bolt matched fishing line from his boat. The evidence will show that the explosive device in this case was housed inside a 480-volt high amperage pump control panel. The jury was properly reminded to consider the evidence solely for its tendency to prove Paul's knowledge of electrical and technical devices. According to the Colusa County Sun Herald, Susan Susie Caseys Murder: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know. The perforating shrapnel- or fragment-related injuries occurred immediately before the fire-related injuries. She sued Moore Brothers farm and three Moores - brothers Arlan and Roger and Roger's son Paul - in Colusa County Court. The admissibility of uncharged acts depends upon three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.' Therefore, the evidence shows a knowledge of, and experience with, electric devices under [Evidence Code section] 1101[, subdivision] (b) and should be admitted., Paul emphasizes that his ex-father-in-law offered the only evidence about the wiretapping and his testimony was simply that Paul put some kind of a recorder or a similar device underneath her modular home where he could, from time to time, monitor what the conversations were. Paul argues, therefore, there is no evidence that installing a wiretapping device demonstrated any particular knowledge about electrical circuitry or working with complex electrical devices. Winds S at 20 to 30 mph. They found threaded pipe nipple, end caps in the form of reducers and plugs, other end caps, washers, nuts, multicolored wire, and seven-inch bolts. They will find him. Low 41F. We accept for purposes of this issue the trial court's characterization of the defense closing argument. But apparently they had little difficulty reaching their verdict. C075231. For example, Peter's hands shook as he tried to connect PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes and install sprinkler systems. Peter told Ruiz and Conedy-Ruiz he did not like Roberto, he was practicing karate to prepare him to fight Roberto, and he referred to Roberto as a son of a bitch. In either June or July of 2012 Peter told Ruiz and his wife to forget everything he had told them a year earlier. White Ford, same plate number. READ NEXT: Susan Susie Caseys Murder: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, Paul Moore, Roberto Ayalas Convicted Killer, is Serving Life in Prison, Please review our privacy policy here: https://heavy.com/privacy-policy/, Copyright 2023 Heavy, Inc. All rights reserved. First, he complains the prosecutors sandbagged him by engaging one prosecutor, who played a more minor role at trial, to make a perfunctory opening argument, saving its genuine substantive attack by the prosecutor who conducted the bulk of the examination. I would decline anyway because I saw target two with his girls and that I can't deal with. Paul's ex-father-in-law testified briefly, and the description he gave certainly did not consume an undue amount of trial time. Cloudflare Ray ID: 7a2e78bba8bccfb8 Higher wind gusts possible. Unfortunately, Arlan passed away, leaving Roger to handle the affairs. But the degree of sophistication it takes to wiretap is not dispositive. Thus, we do not address the theoretical question as to whether there is some line a prosecutor may not cross during rebuttal argument. Given the brevity of the comment, we believe Paul grossly overstates its potential danger and conclude there was no prosecutorial error. Thus, the court disagreed with Paul's threshold argument at trial that the prosecutor's rebuttal was improper because it exceeded the scope of the defense closing argument. Eight fingerprints and the left palm print lifted from the indented sheet of paper matched Paul's. Evidence Code section 352 provides the framework: 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. In other words, the trial court is accorded considerable discretion to carefully balance the competing interests in admitting probative evidence and in excluding evidence that unfairly prejudices a defendant, and an appellate court will overturn the exercise of discretion only when the trial court's assessment appears to exceed the bounds of reason. In sum, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that either Peter or Paul, or perhaps Peter and Paul together, built and planted the bomb that killed Roberto Ayala. A jury convicted defendant Paul Roger Moore of first degree murder based exclusively on circumstantial evidence that he built and planted a victim-activated bomb in an irrigation pump he knew the farm foreman and eventual victim, Roberto Ayala, would activate. Roger, Pauls father, got tied up in a civil suit brought by Ayalas wife, where she alleged that he must have been aware or should have been aware of Pauls malice and past criminal activities. He was born on August 14, 1948, to Leonard and Lona Beauchamp. We concur: He dropped his clippings from his landscape business 40 yards from the pump. The letter stated: Ayala was actually warned what would happen if he screwed with these people. And he drove his ATV over the field with his friend Blane Martin on a regular basis. This is the second warning letter I have sent u. I wanted to make sure u get [sic]. A trace evidence examiner found the fishing line recovered from Paul's boat had the same chemical composition as the line around the bolt found at the site of the explosion. The court summarized what it perceived was a two-part argument: first, that Paul had no part in the killing and had no motive to kill Roberto because everything was rosy for him at the farm and he had worked his way into a happy partnership with his father; but second, his cousin Peter, who was bitter and estranged from the farm he loved, was a plausible bomb builder because he was capable of constructing the simple explosive device in question, particularly with the assistance of the YouTube video found on his computer. In her opinion, the labels came from the same tape cassette or from another one with the same characteristics. That evidence, Paul argued, pointed to Peter's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And while it may be doubtful that Paul killed the farm's foreman to accelerate his own position given that his father had already decided to partner with him, he certainly felt aggrieved and humiliated that he had been denied the opportunity to become the foreman when he graduated from high school and that, throughout his life, those employees like Roberto Ayala who were not part of the Moore family were valued more and treated better than either Peter or Paul. The boy had to run two miles to get help. We agree the prosecution may have overstated the probative value by arguing the degree of sophistication a wiretap takes in the absence of evidence to support that claim. Chance of rain 100%. The money, which is expected to grow to $26,571, will help fund the son's college education, Gingery said. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. November: By November the investigation had targeted Paul. The jurors could have found his behavior odd, even calculated to focus the investigators' attention on his cousin. ADVICE: Are North Americans wimps when it comes to pain tolerance? Nothing precluded defense counsel from confronting that evidence in her closing argument. Another expert will do this job. The investigators took possession of three computers and three cellular telephones. Ct. No. Half of the amount will go to Jesus, Maria and Paola Ayala, while the other half will be placed in an annuity for Roberto's now 12-year-old son. Paul complained that Roberto was accorded special privileges, such as keeping sheep and goats by the farm workshop, drinking beer while working or after work, and driving company vehicles home. On July 12, 2011, Peter had texted Paul that he had been landscaping for 21 years, needed to get out, wanted to farm, was trying to get people to talk to Roger, and hoped that Paul would talk to Roger to help him get started farming. The vehicle, a 2006 Ford F-250, will be sold, he said. Having heard how Roberto Ayala had been burned and blown up, the evidence of a simple wiretap would not have so outraged or incited the jurors as to put them at risk of wrongfully convicting Paul because of this prior act. Paul formulates two attacks arising from the prosecutor's final argument in rebuttal. The first responders believed Roberto's truck had been moved because the broken glass was located about 11 feet away and a piece of glass was in the rear tire tread. The next guy might not catch the error in info and the wrong person will die. On November 24 they noticed the device was not working and they went to Paul's house to investigate. Winds S at 20 to 30 mph. Defendant insists there is no substantial evidence that he murdered Roberto Ayala, and the weak circumstantial evidence of his guilt is insufficient to sustain the verdict in the context of the more compelling evidence that his cousin Peter was the perpetrator. The essence of Paul's argument is that the wiretap had minimal probative value because of the lack of evidence as to the quantum of knowledge necessary to build the bomb that killed Roberto. The prosecutor did not rely on any evidence outside the record, nor did he raise any new theory. Contact us. Considering the ability to spring the money for such luxuries, Roger is definitely quite loaded. In denying Paul's motion for a new trial on this ground, the trial court stated that the prosecutor's offhand and brief comment could not be fairly construed as arguing character. They seized this sheet but not the sheets of paper below it. Whether a trial court has erred in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 1101 is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Defense attorney Linda Parisi argued that Paul Moore's cousin, Peter, was responsible for the bomb in the three-week Colusa County Superior Court trial that was moved from Colusa to Sacramento. Nor do we find the prosecutor's equally innocuous statement that there is no such thing as a prosecution witness another example of prosecutorial error. Titled Family Business, the episode shows how the murder took place against the backdrop of the Moore family saga. The jury was well acquainted with the wiretapping evidence as well as with Paul's description of his life. "But, I never had a doubt that my investigation team put together a rock-solid case," Poyner said. pic.twitter.com/Fu6Kov30EN, Dateline NBC (@DatelineNBC) July 23, 2020. "(The murder) is really the unfortunate product that came out, in spite of Roger's well-meaning efforts to do well by his family and do well by the company," Druliner said. He explained that he had posted a message entitled Horrible Tragedy on a sports gambling Web site wherein he described the death of Roberto Ayala. He was familiar, therefore, not only with Roberto's working routine, but also with the operation of the pump. The defense raised important questions and offered a more than plausible alternative theory, but those questions were answered by the jury and it rejected Paul's argument that Peter was the perpetrator. Rice Subsidies in Colusa County, California, 1995-2020 . Most significantly, Peter broadcast his contempt for Roberto. Why am I helping u? 107 5th Street, Colusa, CA 95932 (People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 238.) Since he was seven, when his father was tragically killed, he is 16 years old now. The circumstantial evidence against Paul Moore included opportunity to plant the bomb and familiarity with the farms, a unique skill set to fix electrical and pump problems, and Pauls bringing investigators a piece of metal he found near the explosion. He will rather seek life in prison without parole for Paul Moore. Peter testified that two months before the explosion, his father told Roberto that if Peter came on the farm, Roberto should have him arrested for trespassing. They attempted other ventures that failedPaul in construction, Peter in starting a sod business. (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1373.) It's leveraged in between there. As an adult, he became a football coach but was fired for his aggressiveness toward a student. (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 21.). Instead, he agreed that the saying, Don't let your bulldog mouth let your mockingbird ass get in trouble applied to Peter. Most of the indented impressions found on the sheet of paper matched the lines in the bomb diagram. According to Paul, something had been placed at the pump to cause the explosion. A Sacramento County jury found him guilty on Aug. 23. Whether or not there is some authority to support the questionable proposition that a prosecutor's rebuttal is limited by the scope of the facts and evidence argued in the defendant's closing argument, the prosecutor did not introduce evidence outside the record or float a completely new theory of guilt.