P. v. Jaramillo CA4/3

Filed 6/25/13 P. v. Jaramillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G046632

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10NF1087)

HECTOR DELIO AGUILAR OPINION JARAMILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Michael Pulos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Hector Delio Aguilar Jaramillo was convicted of the murder of Roberto Martinez. Defendant challenges his conviction on appeal. We affirm. First, defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We disagree. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, based on DNA found at the scene, the testimony of a blood spatter expert, and the similarity between defendant’s shoe size and the size of bloody shoe prints found at the scene. Second, defendant argues the trial court erred by failing to allow evidence of a third party’s culpability in the murder. We find no abuse of discretion; defendant did not offer any evidence that linked a third party to the perpetration of the murder.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 31, 2006, Martinez was murdered in his home. He was stabbed more than 50 times in the head, neck, torso, and extremities. Martinez also suffered blunt force trauma to his face and head. A black latex glove was found at the scene. Defendant could not be excluded as a contributor of DNA found on the inside of the glove; fewer than one in four billion people would have the same profile as the DNA found on the glove. Although the prosecution’s DNA evidence expert was not able to say with 100 percent certainty that the DNA on the glove was defendant’s, she did testify that, statistically, only one other person in the world besides defendant could have contributed the DNA. The outside of the glove was covered with Martinez’s blood. The prosecution’s blood spatter expert opined the glove was worn during the commission of the murder. A hair found on the black glove was identified as belonging to Martinez. Additional DNA was found on a wall inside the home, mixed with Martinez’s blood; defendant could not be excluded as a contributor of that DNA.