People v. Lazaro CA4/3
Filed 6/5/25 P. v. Lazaro CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G064321
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1804114)
ENRIQUE LAZARO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Jon S. Tangonan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Enrique Lazaro guilty of second degree murder. 1 (Pen. Code, § 187. subd. (a).) He contends the jury should have instead convicted him of voluntary manslaughter because the prosecution failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his claim that he was provoked into a heat of passion. (§ 192, subd. (a).) We reject the contention because substantial evidence supports the judgment. We affirm. FACTS
I. THE KILLING In 2014, then 25-year-old Lazaro, met 19-year-old N.G. The couple married about one year later. N.G.’s first pregnancy was unsuccessful. By the spring of 2017, she became pregnant again, but soon discovered Lazaro had a mistress. Lazaro left N.G. in May and filed for divorce in June. N.G. was introduced to Arturo Angel in August and gave birth to her son in December. Lazaro began trying to reconcile with N.G. after their son was born. By February 2018, Lazaro correctly suspected N.G. was dating another person, but she denied it. N.G. would later testify that, at that time, she was “in a way playing with [Lazaro’s] emotions because [she] was still hurt.” She then realized she pitied him because she no longer loved him. In March, there was a physical altercation between Lazaro and Angel. For the sake of their son, N.G. tried to live with Lazaro in an attempt to reconcile. She testified it lasted only three or four days because she concluded she “couldn’t be with him.” The “last day” of her relationship with Lazaro was in early August, when they went to a storage center to
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)