Reported / Citable
Background
Pedro Thomas DeLeon Tzul lived with his girlfriend Martha Garcia for six years. In May or June 2021, Martha’s younger brother Antonio came to live with them. On June 22, 2021, a neighbor heard shrieking from the apartment. Two days later, Tzul sent text messages to his siblings asking forgiveness, indicating he had done “something terrible,” and warning them not to go to the apartment. When family members and the building manager entered, they found Martha and Antonio dead, wrapped in carpets. Martha had been stabbed 29 times and Antonio 37 times. Police found a handwritten note at the scene in which Tzul indirectly admitted killing Martha and Antonio but stated that he had acted in a rage after discovering the two were having sex. Tzul fled to Mexico and was later extradited.
The People charged him with two counts of murder. The prosecutor moved in limine to exclude the note under Evidence Code section 352, arguing it was unreliable and unduly prejudicial. The trial court initially ruled the note was admissible under the state of mind exception in section 1250 but, on the prosecutor’s objection during the People’s case, excluded it under section 352. To get the note before the jury, Tzul was forced to take the stand to testify about the note and his theory of provocation. The trial court then admitted the note. The jury convicted Tzul of first degree murder of Martha and second degree murder of Antonio.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven, reversed and ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the note under Evidence Code section 352 during the People’s case. The note was highly probative of Tzul’s state of mind because it was written contemporaneously with the killings and described his subjective experience as one of rage upon discovering Martha and Antonio together. That theory of provocation, if accepted by the jury, would reduce first degree murder to second degree or to voluntary manslaughter and would negate malice for second degree murder.
The trial court’s concern that the note was self-serving did not justify exclusion. The note was incriminating; it strongly suggested Tzul had killed two people. The unlikely possibility that Tzul, moments after the killings, was already drafting evidence for an eventual heat-of-passion defense did not establish unreliability under Evidence Code section 1252. The court also explained that while the rage statement could potentially be excluded under section 1252 if found untrustworthy, the statement that he discovered the two having sex was not hearsay at all because it was offered as circumstantial evidence of his state of mind, not for the truth of the assertion.
On prejudice, the court held that exclusion of the note in the prosecution case was reversible error. Without the note, Tzul would not have had to take the stand to testify and the jury would have heard a much different version of events. The court concluded it was reasonably probable that, with the note in evidence and without Tzul’s testimony, the jury would not have convicted Tzul of first degree murder or even second degree murder. The court reversed both convictions and remanded for retrial.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352, but it is not unlimited; highly probative state-of-mind evidence cannot be excluded merely because it tends to support a defense theory.
- Statements about external events offered as circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s state of mind are not hearsay and need not satisfy the section 1250 trustworthiness requirement of section 1252.
- Contemporaneous handwritten notes by the defendant at the scene of the killing can be admissible to prove state of mind even if they suggest a heat-of-passion or provocation defense.
- A trial court’s exclusion of evidence that forces a defendant to testify can be reversible error, particularly when the testimony likely produced damaging cross-examination or admissions.
- Provocation theories supported by contemporaneous statements can defeat first degree murder by negating premeditation and deliberation, and can defeat second degree murder by negating malice.
Why It Matters
This is a significant Evidence Code decision in the homicide context. It clarifies that Evidence Code section 352 does not allow trial courts to exclude probative state-of-mind evidence simply because it appears self-serving. The decision will be cited frequently in future homicide and assault cases involving heat-of-passion theories or other state-of-mind defenses.
For prosecutors, the case is a reminder that exclusion of defense-friendly state-of-mind evidence under section 352 is a high-risk strategy. For defense counsel, it offers a roadmap for arguing the admissibility of contemporaneous notes, recordings, and other expressions of state of mind, particularly where those expressions are themselves incriminating but place the conduct in a context that supports a defense theory.