Attorney Support Services for San Diego County and the Temecula Valley.

Eviction Services

Iron Law Eviction Services for San Diego County and Riverside County.

People v. Henriquez

Filed 12/7/17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S089311 v. ) ) CHRISTOPHER HENRIQUEZ, ) ) Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 961902-4 ____________________________________) Defendant Christopher Henriquez killed his pregnant wife and their two- year-old daughter. He stipulated at trial that he killed the victims with malice aforethought, but asserted that the murders were not premeditated and were instead the unplanned result of a fit of rage. A jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder, found true a multiple-murder special circumstance, and returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 10, 1996, the Grand Jury of Contra Costa County indicted defendant Christopher Henriquez for the first degree murder of his wife, Carmen Henriquez (with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon), the first degree murder of his daughter, Zuri Henriquez (with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon), and the second degree murder of the fetus Carmen was carrying. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 1 189, 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The indictment alleged as a special circumstance that defendant committed multiple murders. (Id., § 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) As later amended, the indictment also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike for a serious felony in New York. (Id., §§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) A jury convicted defendant of all charges, found true the alleged enhancements and special circumstance, and returned a verdict of death. II. FACTS A. Guilt Phase 1. Prosecution Case Defendant admitted that he killed his pregnant wife and daughter, but denied that he acted with premeditation. Defendant stipulated “1. that he killed each of the alleged victims. 2. that each and all of the killings were unlawful. 3. that each and all of the killings were done with malice aforethought. 4. that each and all of the killings were done willfully.” Defendant also stipulated that he had been convicted of second degree robbery in New York on April 27, 1994, served a term of 18 months, and was released on parole on July 28, 1995. Defendant was on parole at the time the murders were committed in August 1996. In July 1996, Carmen and Zuri spent some time at the home of Carmen’s father, Harold Jones. Jones learned that defendant intended to rob banks and called him on the telephone “to relay to him the consequences of — and the effects of robbing banks and the effects it would have on his family and himself.” Defendant became “very defensive and boisterous” and said Jones “was intervening in his business.” The conversation “deteriorated” and ended quickly. The next day, Jones’s wife, Mona Lisa Jones, called defendant “trying to patch things up” and defendant repeated that “[t]his is my business.” 2 In mid-July, defendant spoke to Carmen’s best friend, …
Original document
Source: California Supreme Court