State of Washington v. Jaime Munguia Alejandre ( 2020 )

FILED
JULY 9, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 36633-2-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
JAIME MUNGUIA ALEJANDRE, )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Jaime Alejandre appeals after a jury found him guilty of
second degree murder and unlawful disposal of human remains. The jury also found by
special verdict that Alejandre and the victim were “family or household members” for
purposes of the domestic violence aggravator. Alejandre argues he is entitled to a new
trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. He also argues the State presented insufficient
evidence to prove the domestic violence aggravator.
We conclude the deputy prosecutor committed misconduct, but even if the
misconduct involved constitutional error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We
also conclude the State sufficiently proved the domestic violence aggravator. We,
therefore, affirm.
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
FACTS
Jaime Alejandre and Maria Gonzalez Castillo1 lived together with their eight
children. On the evening of June 1, 2017, Alejandre was drunk. M.A.,2 the couple’s 17-
year-old daughter, heard her parents arguing over money in their bedroom. She heard a
big thud that sounded like a body falling. She ran to the closed bedroom door, asked what
was going on, and asked for the door to be opened. Her father said not to open the door
and that he was going to take a shower, even though the house had no running water.
M.A. heard a little click in the bedroom closet, where her father kept his rifle.
When M.A. woke up the next morning, her five-year-old and one-year-old sisters
were on the couch. Her older brother, Manuel, was home, but her other siblings had left
for school. Manuel worked with his father at Carpenter Farms, and they typically drove
together to work. That morning however, Alejandre was not home when Manuel woke
up. Manuel called his father, but his father did not answer.
1
We will refer to adult family members by their first names for brevity and clarity.
2
To protect the privacy interests of the minor children, we identify them only
through the use of initials. General Order of Division III, In Re the Use of Initials or
Pseudonyms for Child Victims or Child Witnesses (Wash. Ct. App. June 18, 2012),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.genorders_orddisp&ordnumber=
2012_001&div=III.
2
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
M.A. and Manuel looked for their mother but could not find her. M.A. saw her
mother’s purse in the laundry room and her shoes were on top of the laundry. M.A.
looked in her parents’ bedroom. It looked odd because the big blanket that usually was
on the bed was gone, and the room looked very clean.
Manuel pulled up his parents’ mattress and saw pools of blood underneath it. He
and M.A. began to cry. M.A. drove her younger siblings to their babysitter’s house.
When she drove back home, she saw smoke coming from an area near her house. Manuel
also saw something burning outside and smelled burning flesh. He asked M.A. to call the
police.
M.A. walked with Manuel to the fire. They saw what appeared to be a body in the
fire pit. Soon after, deputies from the Yakima County Sheriff’s Office arrived. A deputy
lifted human bones out of the pit. Later, dental x-rays of the skull confirmed the body
belonged to Maria.
Deputies went to Carpenter Farms but could not find Alejandre. Because nobody
knew where Alejandre was, M.A. called him. Alejandre answered, and M.A. created a
ruse to get her father to drive home. Deputies stopped Alejandre’s car before he arrived
home and arrested him.
3
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
A forensic pathologist performed an autopsy and determined Maria had been killed
by a blunt object, perhaps the butt of a rifle, fracturing her skull. The blood on the flipped
mattress was Maria’s. A blood trail showed that her body was taken from the bedroom,
through an open bedroom window, and to the fire pit. Maria’s blood was found on the
butt of the rifle, found in the bedroom closet, and on the shirt Alejandre was wearing
when he was arrested.
The State charged Alejandre with one count of second degree murder and one
count of unlawful disposal of human remains. The State alleged the domestic violence
aggravator for both offenses and an additional aggravator related only to the murder
charge. Before trial, Alejandre made a motion in limine to exclude the State from
introducing custodial statements made by him. The State noted Alejandre had not made
any custodial statements.
During the State’s case-in-chief, it called Sergeant Mike Russell and asked him
about Alejandre’s arrest. Sergeant Russell testified that another deputy read Alejandre his
Miranda3 warnings. The prosecutor then asked, “Did the defendant want to speak to
you?” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 288. Alejandre immediately objected and the trial
court sustained the objection. The State then moved on to other questions.
3
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
4
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
Once the jury was excused, Alejandre moved for a mistrial. Alejandre argued the
State’s question constituted an improper comment on him exercising his right to remain
silent. The trial court denied the motion finding the statement did not
elicit the testimony because of the objection and the ruling. Had it gone
further and had there been any testimony elicited, we would be in a
different position than we are now.
I don’t believe it’s technically a comment on the right to remain
silent. It is an unfortunate question that was asked that certainly could have
elicited unconstitutional testimony.
RP at 305.
The State completed its case-in-chief and Alejandre elected not to put on any
evidence. The trial court instructed the jury. One instruction directed the jury not to draw
any inferences from the lawyers’ objections. Another instruction defined household or
family members for purposes of the domestic violence aggravator. That instruction
narrowly defined household or family member as “spouses.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 117.
The jury found Alejandre guilty of second degree murder and unlawful disposal of
human remains. By special verdicts, it also found the State had proved both aggravators
as charged.
At sentencing, Alejandre moved to strike the domestic violence special verdict that
applied to both offenses and argued the State had failed to prove Alejandre and Maria
were legally “spouses.” RP at 811-12. He argued the State had not shown evidence the
5
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
two were ever formally or legally married. The trial court denied the motion. It
sentenced Alejandre to 220 months as a base sentence for second degree murder, 110
months consecutive for the aggravating circumstances, and 90 days concurrent for
unlawful disposal of human remains.
Alejandre timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Alejandre contends the State committed reversible error when it asked Sergeant
Russell whether Alejandre wanted to speak to him after receiving his Miranda warnings.
To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that, in
the context of the record and all of the circumstances of trial, the prosecutor’s conduct
was improper and prejudicial. In re Pers. Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d 696, 704,
286 P.3d 673 (2012) (citing State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wash. 2d 438, 442, 258 P.3d 43
(2011)). If a defendant demonstrates the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and the
defendant made a timely objection at trial, the appellate court must determine whether the
misconduct resulted in prejudice that had a substantial likelihood of affecting the verdict.
State v. Sakellis, 164 Wash. App. 170, 184, 269 P.3d 1029 (2011) (citing State v. Anderson,
153 Wash. App. 417, 427, 220 P.3d 1273 (2009)). If such prejudice exists, the misconduct
6
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
deprives the defendant of his or her constitutional right to a fair trial and is reversible
error. Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d at 703-04 (citing State v. Davenport, 100 Wash. 2d 757, 762,
675 P.2d 1213 (1984)).
The State first responds that Alejandre did not assert prosecutorial misconduct at
trial and we should refuse to review it. As explained below, we disagree.
Soon after Alejandre objected to the deputy prosecutor’s question, the trial court
excused the jury. The following exchange took place:
THE COURT: All right. Well, it’s [the deputy prosecutor]
that’s being accused of misconduct. Go ahead, [defense counsel].
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, just very technically,
we are not accusing anyone of misconduct at this stage. What I’m saying is
the state impermissibly commented on my client’s right to remain [silent].
RP at 299.
It is improper for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s constitutional right to
remain silent. State v. Lewis, 130 Wash. 2d 700, 706, 927 P.2d 235 (1996). Defense
counsel, by objecting and arguing that the deputy prosecutor impermissibly commented
on his client’s right to remain silent, preserved the issue of prosecutorial misconduct
regardless of his comment to the contrary. We, therefore, will review the issue.
We readily agree with Alejandre that the deputy prosecutor’s question was
improper. Both the Washington and the federal constitutions protect the right of an
7
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
accused to remain silent. State v. Burke, 163 Wash. 2d 204, 206, 181 P.3d 1 (2008). The
State may not comment, through its argument or witnesses, on the defendant’s choice to
exercise this right. State v. Clark, 143 Wash. 2d 731, 764, 24 P.3d 1006 (2001). While a
mere reference to the defendant’s silence is permissible, the State cannot invite the jury to
infer guilt from the defendant’s silence. Burke, 163 Wash. 2d at 206.
Here, Sergeant Russell testified Alejandre was advised of his Miranda warnings
after being arrested. The State then asked its witness whether Alejandre wanted to speak.
The State did this knowing Alejandre did not make any custodial statements. The mere
fact the Sergeant was not permitted to answer does not turn an impermissible question
into a proper one. We conclude the deputy prosecutor engaged in improper conduct by
asking the impermissible question.
The parties dispute whether the question constitutes a “comment” on the right to
remain silent or whether it constitutes a “mere reference” on the right to remain silent. If
a “comment,” the question asked implicates constitutional error, and the State bears the
burden of proving it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Easter, 130 Wash. 2d
228, 242, 922 P.2d 1285 (1996). If a “mere reference,” the question asked does not
implicate constitutional error and is not reversible absent a showing of prejudice. Burke,
163 Wash. 2d at 216.
8
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
We need not answer this question. Even were we to apply the more protective
standard advocated by Alejandre, the deputy prosecutor’s improper question was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence against Alejandre, although
circumstantial, was compelling. M.A. heard her parents arguing in their bedroom and
then heard the sound of a body hitting the floor. She ran to the closed bedroom door,
asked what happened, and to be let into the bedroom. Her father told her not to open the
door because he was going to shower, despite there being no running water in the house.
She then heard a light click from the bedroom closet which, in retrospect, may have been
Alejandre placing his rifle back in the closet. The forensic evidence showed that
someone used the butt of the rifle, which was in the bedroom closet, to crush Maria’s
skull and moved the body outside through the bedroom window and to the fire pit where
it was burned. Alejandre was difficult to find the next morning. When he was found and
arrested, he had his wife’s blood on his shirt. Given this compelling evidence that
Alejandre killed Maria with the butt of his rife and then burned his wife’s dead body, we
are convinced the deputy prosecutor’s improper question was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.
9
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIAL VERDICT
Alejandre contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike the jury’s
domestic violence aggravator finding. He argues the State did not meet its burden in
showing he and Maria were “spouses.” We disagree.
A trial court’s ruling to vacate a special verdict based on insufficient evidence is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Pearson, 180 Wash. App. 576, 580, 321 P.3d
1285 (2014). A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes its decision on untenable
grounds or for untenable reasons. Id. The State has the burden of proving the elements
of the special verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, and we review whether, viewing the
facts in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the
State met this burden. Id.
Here, the State alleged that the crimes of second degree murder and unlawful
disposal of human remains were aggravated domestic violence offenses. To show this, it
was the State’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alejandre and Maria were
“family or household members.” Former RCW 10.99.020(3) (2004). The parties did not
object to the trial court’s instruction that defined “family or household member” as
“spouses.”
10
No. 36633-2-III
State v. Alejandre
Jury instructions that are not objected to become the law of the case. State v.
Hickman, 135 Wash. 2d 97, 102, 954 P.2d 900 (1998). Challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence are evaluated according to the trial court’s instructions to the jury. Id. at 102-03.
The law of the case doctrine is broad and applies to “to convict” and definitional
instructions. State v. Calvin, 176 Wash. App. 1, 21, 316 P.3d 496 (2013).
Former RCW 10.99.020(3) states that “family or household member” includes
“spouses.” But chapter 10.99 RCW does not define “spouses.”
Where a specific term is not defined by statute, this court will give the term its
plain and ordinary meaning ascertained from a standard dictionary. State v. Watson, 146
Wash. 2d 947, 954, 51 P.3d 66 (2002). “Spouse” is defined as “a man or woman joined in
wedlock : married person.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2208
(1993).
During trial, the State questioned a number of witnesses who identified Alejandre
as Maria’s husband, and Maria as Alejandre’s wife. At least twice, defense counsel
referred to Maria as Alejandre’s wife. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to
the State, a rational trier of fact could have found Alejandre and Maria were married to
each other and were, therefore, “spouses.”
11
No. 36633-2-111
State v. Alejandre
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alejandre's
motion to strike the jury's domestic violence aggravator finding.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
'c.~
Pennell, C.J. Fearing, J.
12