The police officers confiscated a laptop computer, a combined printer-copier, a partial roll of stamps similar to those used on the second letter sent to the sheriff, an unopened label maker, file folders that had been marked with labels created with a label maker, and manila envelopes similar to the one used for the first letter. Roger encouraged Roberto to seek a restraining order against Peter, but Roberto declined. Name, age, vehicle I.D. The delivery and return addresses were printed label strips made with a label maker. He acknowledges, as he must, that our task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the jury verdict to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a document entitled My Life that he stored on his computer, Paul complained bitterly about his life growing up on the farm. The evidence is all circumstantial. Thus it was relevant and probative of his knowledge of creating explosions. Paul Moore was found guilty on Friday of first-degree murder of Moore Bros. farm foreman Roberto Ayala in Colusa County after the jury deliberated for about five hours. After the trial in 2013, Moore appealed the decision in 2016. Ct. No. He thereafter refused to come back for any additional interviews. The settlement awarded the family $20 million as well as $44,800 in workers compensation payment. "The bells of justice have finally rung for us," Ayala said. Installing a device inside such a panel is a highly dangerous activity. 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. 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. Most damning, they found a sheet of paper with indentations that appeared to match the diagram of the bomb sent to the sheriff. The fact that the document described the history of the family only added to its probative value. In fact, he testified [t]hat piece of property is my favorite piece of property that we own. It was in that field that he ran his duck club before Roger took down the blinds. Whatever they uncovered at his house, tied him to the evidence collected from the crime scene. Considering the ability to spring the money for such luxuries, Roger is definitely quite loaded. On tonight's episode of Dateline NBC, Keith Morrison interviews family members and investigators in Robert Ayala's murder case. 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. He assumed Peter was trying to get him fired. A bomb-sniffing dog did not alert on anything explosive in the house, garage, or truck. It's a very rapid event. He claimed Roberto was a good person but admitted he became upset when he saw Roberto drinking and driving on the farm. He could not retrieve his father's cell phone because his father was on fire. To the contrary, the prosecutor did nothing more than marshal validly admitted evidence to counter defense argument: that is, the prosecutor referred to wiretapping evidence to demonstrate that Paul had superior technical skills to Peter and to his My Life entries to demonstrate he had a motive to kill Roberto, based on a lifetime of indignities and slights he felt on the farm. Tucker reported the incident to the sheriff and to Roger. The trial court sustained the defense objection to the prosecution's characterizations, thereby limiting the prejudicial effect of the alleged prosecutorial error. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by calculating the minimal risk of prejudice and finding the probative value was sufficient to justify the admission of the evidence. #Dateline tonight at 9/8c. Thus, he was suggesting by analogy that the document examiner could not say the papers were a positive match. The trial court rejected the defense claim that the prosecutor improperly had compared paper stock analysis to DNA analysis when there was no DNA analysis in evidence. They also found a rat trap and three mouse traps in the pantry and fishing line in his boat. My Life: Paul maintains that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the prosecution's evidence of a document extracted from Paul's computer entitled My Life because its probative value was outweighed by undue prejudice within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352. 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. Word On The Street: Community weighs in on Governor Newsom's death penalty executive order. 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. For example, Peter's hands shook as he tried to connect PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes and install sprinkler systems. A Colusa County judge approved the judgment last month in the wrongful death lawsuit filed in 2013 by Jesus, Maria and Paola Ayala against Moore Brothers, Arlan Moore, Paul Moore and Roger Moore. She also testified the labels on the envelopes sent to the sheriff were consistent with those on Paul's file folders, with the same type of polyester backing and the same type of acrylic-based adhesive. Peter was more vocal, but Paul built the bomb that killed him. . Moore is the owner of the Moore Brothers Farm. During his apprenticeship, Paul worked alongside Roberto. ROGER HICKEL OBITUARY. Paul Roger Moore was found guilty today of murdering Roberto Ayala. We need not consider Paul's allegation that the accumulation of errors was prejudicial even if taken individually they were not. We simply cannot say the evidence that Paul possessed the unique skill set to build a bomb, that he had the requisite familiarity with Roberto's schedule and with the irrigation pump where the bomb was planted, of his fingerprints on the indented sheet that matched the bomb diagram and the remainder of the forensic evidence connecting his printer and his labels with the letter and diagram sent by the bomber to the sheriff, and of his suspicious behavior in framing his cousin and in manufacturing and planting the spikes in the road and chasing the investigators at high speeds, and his personal account of the lifetime of disappointment he felt in the way he had been treated relative to the way his father and uncle doted on Roberto, does not constitute solid evidence of credible and reasonable value to sustain the verdict. BLEASE, J. Peter told Ruiz and Conedy-Ruiz he did not like Roberto, he was practicing karate to prepare him to fight Roberto, and he referred to Roberto as a son of a bitch. In either June or July of 2012 Peter told Ruiz and his wife to forget everything he had told them a year earlier. Periods of rain. Prosecution experts did not find any evidence of value on Peter's devices. Ultimately, the Ayala family was awarded $20 million. Gingery said the $20 million judgment cannot be discharged in Bankruptcy Court and can be periodically renewed. There were talks of Moore being reappointed to supervise the Sacramento River Fire Protection District, from November 16, 2019, to November 15, 2023. First, he complains the prosecutors sandbagged him by engaging one prosecutor, who played a more minor role at trial, to make a perfunctory opening argument, saving its genuine substantive attack by the prosecutor who conducted the bulk of the examination. Peter loved to shoot ducks. In 2013, Paul Moore, 53, was convicted of killing Ayala (first-degree murder on circumstantial evidence). But abused and ostracized by his father Gus, whom family members called Grumpy, Peter was not allowed to farm and instead spent 21 years earning a living in a landscape business he apparently loathed at times. On several occasions, he physically threatened to harm, among others, his father, his uncle, and Roberto Ayala. We have found no error at all, and therefore there are no errors to accumulate. He insisted that Peter planted the indented paper and that his fingerprints were left on the top sheet when he placed his hand on it to adjust a window shade. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page. The straightedge drawing is -- the diagram depicts -- what we're led to believe is that the diagram depicts the electrical box. We concur: From 1995-2014, they received grants worth $2.1 million. The writing is comprised in a similar fashion as the letters themselves. Even though Paul Moore was the "sole. This vehicle info is the same as the first job. There is also freehand drawing on the diagram, and there's also straightedge drawing on the diagram. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. The prosecutor argued to the jury that scientific experts often use science speak or nerd speak to hedge what they are really saying. He denied involvement in the explosion, declaring it was a chicken shit way for somebody to do it. As mentioned earlier, he claimed he had little experience with electrical devices and no experience with the irrigation pumps. Robert John Vierra. READ NEXT: Susan Susie Caseys Murder: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, Paul Moore, Roberto Ayalas Convicted Killer, is Serving Life in Prison, Please review our privacy policy here: https://heavy.com/privacy-policy/, Copyright 2023 Heavy, Inc. All rights reserved. ARLAN MOORE OBITUARY . Ayala died instantly from the explosive device, and fire and law enforcement officials originally believed the explosion was an accident. Evidence Code section 352 provides the framework: The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. In other words, the trial court is accorded considerable discretion to carefully balance the competing interests in admitting probative evidence and in excluding evidence that unfairly prejudices a defendant, and an appellate court will overturn the exercise of discretion only when the trial court's assessment appears to exceed the bounds of reason. Defense attorney Linda Parisi argued that Paul Moore's cousin, Peter, was responsible for the bomb in the three-week Colusa County Superior Court trial that was moved from Colusa to Sacramento. While it might sound like a humble title, Roger is seemingly quite well off. The defense argued that Peter had been present at the scene of the explosion. This was an MS-13 [Mara Salvatrucha, a violent gang] job, something about a Mexico deal gone wrong. I have nothing to say to that man, other than bye-bye.". Lynette Marie Clark. Recipients of payments . 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. Fill out this form to submit a Letter to the Editor. 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. He told investigators he had operated the panel five days before the explosion, and he drew an accurate picture of the panel. Furthermore, the trial brought to light that Rogers enterprise had several vehicles and machinery, which employees like Roberto were allowed to take for personal use. The Oxygen-Acetylene Bomb: Similarly, the evidence that Paul had mixed oxygen with acetylene to produce an explosion when he was in his early to mid-twenties also had some probative value about his knowledge, even if primitive, of bomb making. Unfortunately, Arlan passed away, leaving Roger to handle the affairs. 3 Crim. Considered in context, there is no danger the jurors were misled or that the document examiner's expert testimony was falsely elevated to the stature of DNA evidence. Chance of rain 100%. And, as with the admissibility of the wiretap evidence, the argument is simply a diminution of the probative value suggested by the prosecution; it is not that the evidence bore no probative value, just that it was substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice. (People v. Vereneseneckockockhoff (1900) 129 Cal. And, of course, he was ostracized from the farm and estranged from his father. The trial court rejected Paul's allegations, most of which are a repackaging of the arguments we have already addressed. On tonights episode of Dateline NBC, Keith Morrison interviews family members and investigators in Robert Ayalas murder case. Chance of rain 100%. ADVICE: Are North Americans wimps when it comes to pain tolerance? Roberto had worked for the Moore brothers for 19 years. Clearly the jury was aware of which witnesses had been called by which side, and such a statement could not reasonably mislead any juror on that point.. The actual printing on the diagram looks like somebody printed it on a label maker, affixed it to the paper and then ran it through a photocopier. ] (People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 879; see People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 783.) The bomb exploded, injuring Paul and his friend. The admissibility of uncharged acts depends upon three principal factors: (1) the materiality of the fact sought to be proved or disproved; (2) the tendency of the uncharged crime to prove or disprove the material fact; and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring the exclusion of relevant evidence.'