People v. Dehoop CA3

Filed 10/31/24 P. v. Dehoop CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C098817

v. (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE- 2019-0009965) TED DEHOOP, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Ted Dehoop, Jr., guilty of the first degree premeditated and deliberated murder of Nathan McFadden, and found true an enhancement allegation that defendant personally discharged a weapon and caused death. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate 50 years to life in prison. Defendant now contends (1) insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike the firearm enhancement. Finding no merit in the contentions, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND During the relevant time period in the summer of 2019, defendant’s father owned many rental properties. About a week before the murder, defendant, McFadden, and others began work on one of the father’s houses. McFadden was installing wood floors

1

and defendant served as the job foreman. Defendant was much larger than McFadden, did not get along with him, and indicated that he wanted McFadden fired. One day, after defendant instructed everyone to go home, McFadden indicated he would simply return later. As they left the property, defendant told another worker that he wished “that little bastard” (McFadden) would go away or disappear. There was conflicting testimony about whether McFadden had been fired the day before he was killed. On the day of the murder, McFadden showed up at the worksite. Coworkers heard defendant and McFadden arguing. One of the coworkers testified she did not hear McFadden threaten defendant, but she heard defendant say he had something for McFadden. The next thing she heard was a gunshot. She went outside and saw defendant on the phone calling 911 and McFadden on the ground. McFadden died from a gunshot to the head. Evidence indicated the muzzle of the weapon had been pressed tightly against McFadden’s temple. Defendant told the 911 dispatcher he had a dead body he needed picked up. Defendant also called his father and said, “I took care of [McFadden].” The father testified he never knew defendant to bring a gun to a jobsite. Responding police officers described defendant as cooperative, matter of fact, and calm. They located a firearm on a table two to three feet from McFadden with a magazine and a live round next to it. According to toxicology reports, McFadden had a high level of methamphetamine in his blood. The People’s pathologist testified that typically, a person with that much methamphetamine in their blood could have behavioral issues such as aggression and paranoia. The defense’s toxicologist testified that someone with that level of methamphetamine might appear paranoid and typically would be aggressive. Defendant testified on his own behalf. He said that on the day of the murder, he brought a pistol and ammunition to the jobsite. He said he did so because he believed McFadden would try to kill him.