Casual sex dating in wilmington ca 90748

July 07, Michael J. Wilnington, Attorneys General, Dane R. A jury convicted defendant Eloy Loy of the first degree murder of Monique Arroyo under the special circumstance of a murder committed while engaged in the commission Casual sex dating in wilmington ca 90748 a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict and sentenced daitng to death. This appeal jn automatic. We affirm the judgment. Guilt Phase The evidence showed that during the night of May 8—9,1 defendant entered the bedroom of his 12—year—old niece, Monique Casual sex dating in wilmington ca 90748, while she was sleeping.

He assaulted her sexually, killed her, and dumped her body in a nearby vacant lot, where it was discovered four days later. Prosecution Evidence On the afternoon of May 8, defendant went to the Wilmington home of his sister, Rosalina Arroyo, and her family. Rosalina's 12—year—old daughter, Monique Arroyo, also lived at that house. Monique shared an upstairs bedroom with her older sister, Josette. Previously, defendant had lived at that home for a while. At this time, however, he was residing with his brother and sister-in-law, Leonard and Maria Loy, who lived about five to 10 miles from the Arroyo home.

Some of the witnesses testified that defendant had not been at the Arroyo house for datinv weeks before that day, and that he normally was not allowed to go upstairs. That afternoon, a movie location manager arrived and spoke with Rosalina. The manager arranged to use the Arroyo house eilmington a movie project. Monique was to have an opportunity to appear as an extra in the project. She arrived home from school around 2: Defendant helped Monique's brother, Jose Arroyo, Jr. Josework on a sprinkler system Casual sex dating in wilmington ca 90748 the front yard. When they finished, defendant and Jose went out drinking Caeual, using defendant's car, a red Cadillac.

After various stops, including one where they put about datimg dollar's worth of gasoline in the tank, all Casual sex dating in wilmington ca 90748 could afford at the time, they returned to the Arroyo home. Defendant parked his car on the street. Csaual, Jose, who datiny become intoxicated, refused to get out of silmington car. Around this time, Jose Italian escorts in latina his brother Gabriel. Defendant told Gabriel that Jose was drunk and datinv for help getting Jose out of wilmingto car. Eventually, defendant, Jose, and Gabriel entered Jose's bedroom on the second floor. Normally, defendant was not permitted to go upstairs.

It was around They left and Wlimington fell asleep. To get downstairs from Jose's bedroom, one has to pass by Monique's bedroom. Gabriel testified that he went downstairs to his bedroom and defendant went downstairs with him. He thought defendant was leaving the house by the front door, but he did not actually see him leave or hear a door close. Gabriel went to bed around midnight. He looked to see that the doors to the outside were closed. The lights were off in the house. Defendant's car was still in front. Gabriel did not hear it leave. Josette spent that night at her boyfriend's house, so Monique was alone in her bedroom.

Monique had occasionally locked her bedroom door, but she stopped doing so because of Josette's complaints. Rosalina herself went to bed around Before she did so, she twice checked on Monique, who was asleep in her bedroom. Monique's bedroom door was not locked. Thinking it might have been her imagination, she went back to sleep. The door to Monique's door was still closed. The next morning, Monique was missing. Her father awoke around 5: He told Rosalina that Monique was not there but then went to work around 6: The side door to the house had an inner and an outer door. Members of the Arroyo family looked for Monique but could not find her.

Her brother Jose looked in her bedroom. He observed Monique's sheets on the floor in the middle of the bedroom, as if they had been thrown there. Later, Jose found in Monique's closet on the bottom of a pile of clothes the shirt that Rosalina testified Monique was wearing when she went to bed. Josette arrived home around 7: She observed a sheet from Monique's bed on the driveway. Some were on the floor. That morning, Josette called the home where defendant was living. Defendant told her that he had gone straight home after leaving the Arroyo house the night before. Josette testified that she checked and determined that none of Monique's clothes or shoes were missing.

There was no sign of a forced entry into the house. On May 12, Monique's nude body was found in a vacant lot about one-half to three-fourths mile from the Arroyo home. The body was badly decomposed and covered with maggots. It had to be identified by dental records. When found, the body was covered by a comforter that had been on Monique's bed, identical to another comforter belonging to Josette. The comforter was not in Monique's room the morning she was discovered missing. Leonard Loy, with whom defendant was living at this time, testified that the night before Monique was discovered missing, he went to bed around Defendant was not home.

Sometime later, Leonard got up and noticed that defendant was not home then either. Maria Loy testified that at 5: She waited for someone to turn it off. When no one did so, she turned it off herself. Defendant was not home at the time, and his car was not parked in its usual spot. Maria went back to bed, reawakening shortly before 7: This time defendant was home. Howard Wilson, who lived about two houses from where defendant was living at the time, testified that around 2: Defendant looked at him and drove by very slowly. Defendant's car turned around and passed by a second time, then a third time. Then Wilson observed defendant walking away from his house.

Lisa Scheinin performed the autopsy. Scheinin did not observe any obvious signs of injury to the genitalia, but an injury could not be ruled out because the body was badly decomposed. Microscopically, she found bleeding in various areas of the vagina, which was consistent with sexual penetration. No semen was found on the body or the comforter covering it, but that did not rule out sexual activity. A criminalist compared fibers taken from the comforter that had covered Monique's body with fibers from the carpet in defendant's car.

Erin Riley, a serologist, performed deoxyribonucleic acid DNA analysis of the bloodstain, using the polymerase chain reaction method. She determined that the bloodstain could have been Monique's blood but not defendant's. One person in aboutwould match that blood's DNA profile. Blood found on the comforter was consistent with Monique's blood. Defendant's left palm print was found on the outside portion of the doorframe of Monique's bedroom. David Faulkner, an entomologist, examined maggots collected from the body.

Based on the development of the maggots, he could estimate how long they had been associated with the body. In his opinion, they had been associated with the body between 3. Because most insects do not fly at night, the body could have been left in that location the previous night. Several family members testified about the strained relationship between defendant and Monique. Maria Loy, defendant's sister-in-law, testified that about a month before Monique was discovered missing, defendant spoke with her concerning Monique.

That little brat, I'll get to her. I don't know how, but I'll get to her. You could just hear her holding back tears. Both victims testified about the crimes.




Business Info

Forklift operator jobs near los angeles, ca

Sometimes the cumulative effect of errors that are harmless in themselves can be prejudicial. We must examine exactly what expert testimony Faulkner was providing. In Redd, we found no error in overruling the objection actually made. Mendoza, supra, at p.

In my view, the instruction was daating misleading, because it implied that the jury could rely on the prior sexual offense as the sole basis for convicting the defendant of the sexual crime charged in that case, so long as the jury found the prior sexual offense allegations to be true under a standard of proof higher than a preponderance of the evidence. Hinton 37 Cal. Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.