Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Defendant Robert Munoz was convicted in two separate jury trials of the 2016 murder of Ruben Ambrus and the 2019 murder of Robert Santillano. In the 2019 incident, Munoz and his girlfriend were arguing in a parking lot when Santillano intervened. A physical altercation ensued, during which Munoz stabbed Santillano multiple times, including a fatal wound that severed the carotid artery in his neck. Munoz claimed self-defense, asserting that Santillano was the aggressor and that he feared for his safety.
In the 2016 incident, Ambrus was stabbed in the back of the neck while walking in Carmichael Park. Witnesses saw a man flee, and Munoz's girlfriend testified that shortly afterward Munoz told her he had 'put holes in that guy.' Munoz was arrested at a vacant house in Antelope the day after the 2019 murder; in the 2016 case, a deputy contacted him about two weeks after that killing. The trial court severed the counts. The jury found Munoz not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of second-degree murder in the 2019 case, and guilty of first-degree murder in the 2016 case. He was sentenced to life without parole for the first-degree murder, consecutive to 45 years to life for the second-degree murder, plus a consecutive determinate term of 22 years.
The Court’s Holding
On appeal, Munoz challenged the trial court's exclusion of evidence of Santillano's blood alcohol content during the 2019 murder trial. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Evidence Code section 352. The jury already knew Santillano had been drinking and was intoxicated, but the specific BAC was not a sound basis for inferring how alcohol affected his behavior because alcohol affects each person differently. Relying on People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, the court held that admitting the BAC without expert explanation would invite speculation and that the probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of undue time, confusion, or misleading the jury.
Munoz also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that he murdered Ambrus. The Court of Appeal applied the substantial-evidence standard, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment. It found sufficient evidence in T.E.'s testimony that Munoz said he 'put holes in that guy' and fled on her bicycle, surveillance video showing two bicyclists shortly before the 911 call, their prior encounters with Ambrus, Munoz's motive, his flight, and his instruction that T.E. not talk about it. Discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions went to weight, not sufficiency.
Finally, Munoz challenged fines and fees. The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the suspended parole revocation fine was erroneously included in the abstract of judgment because it was not part of the oral pronouncement, and it remanded with directions to delete that fine and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The trial court had waived all but the mandatory minimum restitution fine, and the appellate court upheld that minimum because the record did not show compelling and extraordinary reasons to waive it further. The court also upheld the court operations and facility assessments because defense counsel did not specifically object based on inability to pay, and it noted that Assembly Bill No. 1213, effective January 1, 2026, gave victim restitution priority over other fines and fees, mooting the payment-priority concern.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the exclusion of the victim's specific blood alcohol content as a proper exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 because the jury could not reliably infer behavior from BAC alone.
- Substantial evidence supported the 2016 murder conviction, including the defendant's girlfriend's account, surveillance timing, prior encounters, motive, flight, and consciousness of guilt; inconsistent eyewitness descriptions affect weight, not sufficiency.
- The court remanded for correction of the abstract of judgment to delete the suspended parole revocation fine that was not orally pronounced, with a certified copy to be sent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
- The court upheld the mandatory minimum restitution fine and the court assessments, holding that the ability-to-pay challenge to the assessments was forfeited and that Assembly Bill No. 1213 mooted concerns about restitution payment priority.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the broad discretion trial courts have under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude victim-intoxication evidence that would require jurors to speculate about behavior, and it reaffirms the deferential substantial-evidence review that views circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
On the fines issue, the opinion illustrates the limits of appellate relief for unpronounced fines, the forfeiture consequence of failing to raise a specific ability-to-pay objection to assessments, and the practical effect of Assembly Bill No. 1213 in making victim restitution the priority over other fines and fees.