Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ricardo Martinez was charged with murdering Brittany Stevens inside a travel trailer in North Hollywood on July 8, 2022. The prosecution also alleged personal firearm use and two prior serious or violent felony convictions. A jury acquitted Martinez of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder and found the firearm allegation true; the trial court found the strike allegations and three aggravating factors true and imposed an aggregate sentence of 45 years to life.
The evidence included testimony that Martinez held a gun to Stevens's neck at a motel the night before the killing and pointed a handgun at Chantelle Allison and Andrew Peralez during a confrontation shortly before the shooting. Stevens was killed by one shot fired from an estimated two to 36 inches away. The bullet entered her right cheek near her ear, traveled from front to back and right to left in a slightly downward direction, and severed her cervical spine. Witnesses described Martinez leaving immediately, wiping the gun, saying he would be "on the run," pursuing witnesses in his car, and later soaking a shirt containing the gun with hydrogen peroxide.
On appeal, Martinez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of express or implied malice, the refusal to instruct on involuntary manslaughter, and the refusal to give an accident instruction. He also challenged two $300 entries concerning restitution and parole revocation fines. The Attorney General agreed that the abstract of judgment required correction.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported express malice. Reviewing the record favorably to the judgment rather than reweighing it, the court relied on the close-range shot to Stevens's face, Martinez's earlier threats with the handgun, his apparent smirk and gun-wiping afterward, his flight and pursuit of witnesses, his efforts to conceal or clean evidence, and his recorded jailhouse statements about whether police had recovered the weapon. The court explained that this evidence permitted an inference that Martinez intended to kill Stevens or knew to a substantial certainty that his actions would cause her death.
The court also upheld the refusal to instruct on involuntary manslaughter. It found no evidence that Martinez was merely brandishing the firearm when Stevens was shot and no evidence of negligent handling that caused an unintentional discharge. Witnesses did not see him display or handle the gun inside the trailer before the shot, and there was no testimony that he stumbled, reached toward his waistband, or otherwise mishandled it. The proposed theories therefore lacked the substantial evidentiary support required for a lesser-included-offense instruction.
The accident instruction was properly refused for the same basic reason: the record did not support an unintentional, nonnegligent killing. The court reasoned that producing and pointing a loaded gun at Stevens's face from no more than three feet away was not careful conduct, while the absence of an eyewitness to the precise discharge and the firing of only one shot did not create a reasonable inference of accident. The conviction was affirmed, but the court remanded with instructions to delete both $300 fines because the restitution fine had not been imposed and the parole revocation fine depended on that restitution fine. The trial court was directed to issue an amended abstract and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Key Takeaways
- A close-range gunshot to the victim's face, combined with prior threats and post-shooting consciousness-of-guilt evidence, provided substantial evidence of express malice.
- The absence of hostility between the defendant and victim did not defeat the malice finding because intent could be inferred from the circumstances and Martinez's actions.
- Involuntary-manslaughter instructions were not required without evidence supporting either accidental brandishing or criminally negligent handling of a loaded firearm.
- An accident instruction requires evidence of an unintentional killing without negligence; speculation based on a single shot and the lack of an eyewitness to the discharge was insufficient.
- The remand changed only the abstract of judgment by removing the two $300 fines and did not disturb the murder conviction or 45-years-to-life sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how California appellate courts distinguish reasonable evidentiary inferences from speculation in murder cases. The same record that supported an intentional close-range shooting also undermined Martinez's alternative theories that the gun discharged during brandishing, negligent handling, or a nonnegligent accident. The court did not reweigh witness credibility or require direct evidence of intent.
The fine ruling is a separate, limited correction. Because the sentencing court did not impose the section 1202.4 restitution fine after an apparent inability-to-pay stipulation, the abstract could not list it, and no matching section 1202.45 parole revocation fine could stand. The trial court must issue an amended abstract and send a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.