paul roger moore colusa ca

It is true that the prosecution did not elicit testimony from the ex-father-in-law or from anyone else about what electrical knowledge was necessary to wiretap a telephone. She thereafter requested the opportunity to offer a surrebuttal. He also threatened his Uncle Roger, despite the fact he believed Roger would be more fair to him than his father. Contact us. He lived with his parents and. Peter was more vocal, but Paul built the bomb that killed him. A document examiner from the United States Secret Service compared the ink from the documents sent to the sheriff's department with the ink on documents from the printer confiscated at Paul's house. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. He faces life in prison without parole He claimed Roberto was a good person but admitted he became upset when he saw Roberto drinking and driving on the farm. Paul was eventually arrested for the murder of Roberto Ayala. Ct. No. In The Court of Appeal of the State of California. Of course, the evidence was damaging, for it confirmed the prosecution's basic theory of the case, that a disappointed, angry, and envious man killed the foreman who threatened him most in his father's eyes. This characterization, according to Paul, sought to convince the jury he was a creepy person and, as a result, had a propensity to commit bad acts. While there is no evidence that he actually had been disinherited, Peter believed he had and that Roberto would be the recipient of his share of the farm. Ultimately, the Ayala family was awarded $20 million. Roger encouraged Roberto to seek a restraining order against Peter, but Roberto declined. Titled Family Business, the episode shows how the murder took place against the backdrop of the Moore family saga. Winds S at 20 to 30 mph. Paul complained that Roberto was accorded special privileges, such as keeping sheep and goats by the farm workshop, drinking beer while working or after work, and driving company vehicles home. Whether we conclude that despite our reservation the trial court did not abuse its discretion or that, even if there was an abuse of discretion, the failure to allow surrebuttal was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, our rationale is essentially the same. That evidence, Paul argued, pointed to Peter's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we do not address the theoretical question as to whether there is some line a prosecutor may not cross during rebuttal argument. Powered by WordPress.com VIP. On July 16, 2011, Roberto picked up his seven-year-old son, bought him lunch, and drove to one of the Moore brothers' rice fields to adjust the irrigation pump. He learned that a bell rang every time a verdict was made. He has endangered others in his family. Roberto's seven-year-old son told the investigators and testified at the preliminary hearing that he did not move or drive the truck after the bomb exploded. Paul Moore was convicted of killing Roberto Ayala, an employee of Moore Brothers. He contends the evidence was too remote, was not probative of his knowledge of electrical circuitry or constructing sophisticated bombs, and was substantially more prejudicial than probative. Our sole duty, as we wrote at the outset, is only to insure that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict this jury reached. Paul injured his back and had to give up construction. Find Dr. Moore's phone number, address, hospital affiliations and more. Peter insists that on his deathbed his grandfather expressed his desire for Peter to farm the walnut orchards. In the second message, Peter said he had worked for 21 years so he could have a chance to farm; that he wanted his grandfather's farm to stay in the family, but his father had disinherited him; that he and Roger were now screwed and he was not going to get a chance to farm; that he had never had a father except biologically; that his father was a douchebag and had never given him a penny; that Roger could not see the Ayala boys over there ripping [him] off blind; and that Roberto had his kid driving the harvester. After a few years, Martin Tucker told Roger that Peter and his friends were shooting every bird in the sky. But the document provided strong circumstantial evidence he secretly envied the position to which Roberto had ascended and the discomfort Roberto's presence continued to cause him. Becoming windy late. In his view, the admission of such prejudicial evidence rendered the state proceedings fundamentally unfair and violated his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We have outlined the chronology of the investigation and how it produced evidence that Paul was quick to alert the investigators to evidence suggesting that Peter bore Roberto ill will, that Peter had threatened Roberto, that Peter had been at the scene of the explosion the day before it happened, and that it was an explosion, not an accident. Defendant insists there is no substantial evidence that he murdered Roberto Ayala, and the weak circumstantial evidence of his guilt is insufficient to sustain the verdict in the context of the more compelling evidence that his cousin Peter was the perpetrator. Records published here were acquired from Colusa . We are not at liberty to second-guess the trial court's careful and reasoned assessment, and because we find there is no abuse of discretion, there was no error in admitting the evidence. On November 24 they noticed the device was not working and they went to Paul's house to investigate. He testified Paul constructed a rice roller and a fertilizer aqua bar in the farm workshop. He was able, however, to install electrical sprinkler systems. Paul was afforded a fair trial, the appeals court said at the time. There were disagreements where Roger took Roberto's advice over that of his son or nephew. At the same time, their sons, Peter and Paul, respectively, hated Ayala. The prosecution called a litany of forensic experts connecting Paul to the sheet of paper with the indentations of the bomb diagram, the paper in the printer to the paper used in the diagram of the bomb, the ink in the copier to the ink used on the second letter and the diagram, the type of labels used in the letters and diagram to the type Paul used on his own files, and the fishing line found in his boat to the type of fishing line used in the bomb. The bomb is set off.. Moreover, he was aware of the 19 years Roberto had dedicated to the Moore brothers' farm and had watched at a distance as Roberto ascended to the position he coveted. But Paul insists the prosecutor's rebuttal constituted error, even if we assume it was not intentional. . He argues that the trial court's error violated his right to a fair trial and due process of law under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Colusa) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL ROGER MOORE, Defendant and Appellant. CR53504) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Colusa County, Jeffrey A. Thompson, J. (People v. Johnson (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 417-419. Low 41F. During his apprenticeship, Paul worked alongside Roberto. This is why I refused this job, but the next guy might kill both to ensure payment. Rain. We cannot say the trial court's denial of defense counsel's request for surrebuttal constituted an abuse of discretion under these circumstances, and we also cannot say that additional argument on the same themes already argued would have changed the jurors' finding that Paul was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Rain. He had been angry and upset with the Moore family since he was 12 years old. Prosecutors David Druliner and Poyner argued that Paul Moore was clever and resented that he ranked low on the farm compared to other employees, particularly Roberto Ayala, who had a close relationship with Roger Moore. Ruben was born in Woodland, CA, on January 27, 1941, to Frank and Eleanor Reynoso. Virginia Carmen Ortiz. He was familiar, therefore, not only with Roberto's working routine, but also with the operation of the pump. Paul said the evidence was no big deal; he said the sheet was found in his house by the window, and he probably leaned on it and opened the window.. We turn to counsel's arguments, the objections that were lodged, and the trial court's rationale in denying the defense request to make a surrebuttal argument and denying its later motion for a new trial. A Sacramento County jury found him guilty on Aug. 23. We agree with the trial court. The trial court agreed with the prosecutor's position that the defense argument put in issue virtually all evidence that tended to show Paul's motive, technical skills, and past related actions and opened the door to fair comment on any and all evidence tending to link him to the crime. Ayala was killed in an explosion in 2013. . Paul alleges the trial court erred by denying his request to offer a surrebuttal to the second prosecutor's rebuttal and depriving him of the opportunity to offer a reply to the facts and arguments he had not raised in his own closing argument. He never apologized, and her husband, Antonio Ruiz, demanded that she not confront him. 3 Crim. Peter's best friend, Blane Martin, countered this narrative. "I don't imagine my clients will see anything of it," Sacramento lawyer Justin Gingery said. There is indeed sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that Paul had nursed a lifetime animosity toward nonfamily members his father appeared to favor. Express your opinion! The 3rd District Court of Appeals said it found no reason to overturn the guilty verdict in Paul Moore's 2013 trial. In fact, after Roberto injured his shoulder, Paul accompanied him on occasion to the irrigation pumps to adjust water levels. Another expert will do this job. Like the first letter, the text of the second was made with a label maker and photocopied. The bomb exploded, injuring Paul and his friend. Cemetery Records. Beyond those innocuous hobbies, he wiretapped a telephone and blew up a bomb. The money, which is expected to grow to $26,571, will help fund the son's college education, Gingery said. Gunner believed his dad could repair just about anything and could make something out of nothing. One of Paul's favorite hobbies, according to Gunner, was assembling and flying radio-controlled airplanes. It's a very rapid event. And, of course, he was ostracized from the farm and estranged from his father. Whether wiretapping is relatively simple or exceedingly complex, it takes a certain degree of knowledge to tap into someone's phone line. "I feel like I've lost two sons in one time," Roger Moore said. Though there was no DNA evidence or fingerprints on the explosive device, the jury found Paul Moore guilty. The prosecutor argued to the jury that scientific experts often use science speak or nerd speak to hedge what they are really saying. And while it may be doubtful that Paul killed the farm's foreman to accelerate his own position given that his father had already decided to partner with him, he certainly felt aggrieved and humiliated that he had been denied the opportunity to become the foreman when he graduated from high school and that, throughout his life, those employees like Roberto Ayala who were not part of the Moore family were valued more and treated better than either Peter or Paul. She sued Moore Brothers farm and three Moores - brothers Arlan and Roger and Roger's son Paul - in Colusa County Court. The delivery and return addresses were printed label strips made with a label maker. In his trial, he received a guilty verdict and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Paul Moore, a family friend of Ayalas, was found guilty of setting the explosive device that killed Ayala after he turned on an irrigation pump at a rice field at the Moore Brothers farm. However, the 3rd District Court of Appeals did not find any reason to overturn the verdict. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Obituaries from McNary-Moore Funeral Service in Colusa, California. The focus again, therefore, is not on just how probative the evidence was, but rather on how grave the risk of prejudice admission of the old incident presented. Fill out this form to submit a Letter to the Editor. We will not repeat what we have already said about the prosecutor's references to either the wiretapping or the My Life document but will examine Paul's other allegations of prosecutorial error. Code, 1101, subd. This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. While it might sound like a humble title, Roger is seemingly quite well off. Third Appellate District (Colusa) (Super. According to the testimony offered by his father, his son, and his ex-father-in-law, that was a lie. After the trial in 2013, Moore appealed the decision in 2016. My house and property are protected, larger devices. Paul Moore, a family friend of Ayala's, was found guilty of setting the explosive device that killed Ayala after he turned on an irrigation pump at a rice field at the Moore Brothers farm.. Given the brevity of the comment, we believe Paul grossly overstates its potential danger and conclude there was no prosecutorial error. Even though Paul Moore was the "sole. And because the explosion would be instantaneous, the victim would still be in contact with the electrical panel and would be electrocuted. The wiretapping incident indicates knowledge of electrical circuits, as well as the ability to alter and manipulate said circuits while maintaining personal safety. Express your opinion! There was no undue consumption of time since Paul's ex-father-in-law explained what he knew about Paul's involvement in creating an explosion in a paragraph or two. His son, Fabian, who was 7 at the time, witnessed the explosion and ran two miles through fields to find help. Peter testified that two months before the explosion, his father told Roberto that if Peter came on the farm, Roberto should have him arrested for trespassing. In addition, he had a violent disposition and leveled threats to harm not only Roberto, but his father, his uncle, and many others who upset him. NICHOLSON, J. But it is the jury's prerogative, not ours, to weigh the evidence. The lack of complete alignment resulted from the diagram or indented sheet being moved, the diagram being drawn at different times, or a line being overwritten. As a result, Roger had the duck blinds removed. Indeed, shortly before the explosion, Roberto had injured his shoulder and Peter declared that [w]hen his wing is better, he's all mine. He was upset that Roberto spent Father's Day with Gus and that they were together all the time. Most of the indented impressions found on the sheet of paper matched the lines in the bomb diagram. He threatened to beat [his] dad's ass on multiple occasions. The essence of Paul's argument is that the wiretap had minimal probative value because of the lack of evidence as to the quantum of knowledge necessary to build the bomb that killed Roberto. Location and meter number for panel. Taken together, their expert opinions constitute substantial evidence from which the jurors could reasonably infer that Paul was the author of the incriminating letters to the investigators and that it was the author of those letters with the knowledge of the intricacies of the bomb who must have designed, created, and planted it. According to Case Law, Paul Moore regarded the Ayala brothers with animosity and said of Roberto, Those son-of-a-b******, they are trying to take over my life. The trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion by admitting highly relevant evidence when the only prejudice is the fact the story Paul himself told was a damaging one. In denying Paul's motion for a new trial on this ground, the trial court stated that the prosecutor's offhand and brief comment could not be fairly construed as arguing character. And Roberto Ayala, in particular, was the target of his wrath. In the explosive expert's opinion, the evidence collected from the scene of the explosion was consistent with the diagram of the bomb, including a bolt with the piece of fishing line, pieces of a sprayed-black plastic bottle, plastic wrap, and washers and bolts that might have been part of the bomb. (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1373.) The settlement also included about $44,800 in worker's compensation payments. On August 18 Paul brought in another fragment he thought was suspicious and indicative of a bomb going off. ), Nevertheless, the Legislature also recognized that some otherwise inadmissible character evidence should be considered by a jury because it is relevant to prove identity, intent, or knowledge.

Is Leeds Magistrates Court Open, Beef Stroganoff Vermouth, Scott Bakula House, Articles P