FILED
DECEMBER 21, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 33958-1-111
)
Respondent, )
)
V. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
FRANCISCO J. RESENDEZ MIRANDA, )
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, J. - Francisco Miranda appeals his convictions for three counts of
aggravated first degree murder. We affirm.
FACTS
The facts of this case are lengthy and well known to the parties. We discuss only
those portions necessary to resolve the parties' contentions.
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
In the early hours of an August 2014 morning, three dead bodies were located in a
remote area of a Benton County farm. The victims were identified as David Perez
Saucedo Jr., Abigail Renteria Torres, and Victoria Torres. Forensic examiners opined
that Mr. Saucedo and Abigail Torres had been shot at close range and died quickly. Mr.
Saucedo had two gunshot wounds to his head. Abigail Torres had a single gunshot
wound to her head and was discovered to have been pregnant with a full-term child. The
condition of Victoria Torres's body was different. It appeared to examiners that Victoria
Torres had been shot while trying to run away. Victoria Torres also had marks on her
neck consistent with strangulation and a physical struggle.
Law enforcement's investigation came to focus on Francisco Miranda, his father,
and his two brothers. Only Mr. Miranda was ultimately arrested. Mr. Miranda's family
members all left for Mexico prior to coming to the attention of the authorities.
Mr. Miranda made a number of statements that were used against him at trial.
While Mr. Miranda's statements to law enforcement were merely inconsistent, as opposed
to directly incriminating, the same was not true of his statements to lay witnesses.
Several witnesses testified that Mr. Miranda had admitted to being involved with the
shootings along with his family members. One of the lay witnesses (a jail inmate)
2
1
Ij'
I
No. 33958-1-III
State v. Miranda
reported Mr. Miranda stating that one of the female victims had not died right away, so
his family members took a belt and stepped on her throat.
Apart from recounting Mr. Miranda's various confessions, several witnesses
placed Mr. Miranda together with the victims the night before the murders. One of the
witnesses also said Mr. Miranda had borrowed his loaded .38-caliber revolver the night of
the murders. When the firearm was later returned, the ammunition was gone and blood
spatter was located around the barrel. 1
The State's theory was that Mr. Miranda sought revenge against Mr. Saucedo for
burglarizing his apartment. Mr. Miranda and his family members abducted Mr. Saucedo
and his two female companions, took them out to a remote farm, and then shot them
execution style. Consistent with Mr. Miranda's confession, the State theorized that Mr.
Miranda's family members had strangled Victoria Torres after she escaped from the
initial shooting.
The forensic evidence implicating Mr. Miranda was limited. The suspect firearm
had been thrown in a river. Shoe prints and trace evidence from the scene did not connect
back to Mr. Miranda. However, law enforcement were able to uncover a relevant item of
1
The witness threw the firearm into a river before it could be analyzed by law
enforcement.
3
No. 33958-1-III
State v. Miranda
clothing during a search of Mr. Miranda's apartment. The article was a tank top marked
with a blood stain that was traced to Victoria Torres.
Mr. Miranda was charged with three counts of first degree murder with
aggravating factors for there being more than one victim as to all three counts,
RCW 10.95.020(10), and an additional aggravating factor based on the fact that one
of the victims was pregnant at the time of her death, RCW 9.94A.535(3)(c).
At trial, the State introduced through its medical examiner an autopsy photograph
depicting the fetus taken from Abigail Torres's womb. The medical examiner explained
he had selected the photograph as a jury exhibit because it was helpful in explaining that
the baby was full term and that the victim's pregnancy would not have appeared subtle to
the outside observer. The trial court admitted the autopsy photo over Mr. Miranda's
objection, reasoning its probative value outweighed any prejudice.
At the conclusion of trial, Mr. Miranda objected to the court's inclusion of an
accomplice liability instruction. Relevant to this appeal, Mr. Miranda argued there was
insufficient evidence 'to prove he was a major participant in the killings and, therefore, it
was unfair to allow the State to prove he acted as an accomplice to uncharged individuals.
The trial court disagreed with Mr. Miranda's arguments and permitted the instruction.
4
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
In addition to his objection to the State's instructions, Mr. Miranda also requested
lesser included instructions on second degree murder. The court determined this
instruction was factually unwarranted. The judge explained that, without resorting to
speculation, he was "unable to postulate or to put together any line of reasoning that's
supported by the evidence that would justify instructions on the lesser included,"
14 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Nov. 19, 2015) at 2147, and there were no "facts that
would support anything other than premeditated and first degree murder with respect to
all three victims," Id. at 2149.
The jury found Mr. Miranda guilty of all three charges. It further found the
common scheme aggravator applied to all three counts. However, the jury did not find
Mr. Miranda knew Abigail Torres was pregnant at the time she was killed. Thus, an
aggravator was not imposed under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(c). Mr. Miranda was sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appeals.
ANALYSIS
Autopsy photo
A trial court's admission of autopsy photographs is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. State v. Yates, 161 Wn.2d 714, 768, 168 P.3d 359 (2007). Such photos, even
5
No. 33958-1-III
State v. Miranda
if gruesome, are admissible when the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.
Id.; ER 403.
Autopsy photos can be relevant to help the jury understand a medical examiner's
testimony. State v. Whitaker, 133 Wn. App. 199, 229, 135 P.3d 923 (2006); State v.
Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 608, 888 P.2d 1005 (1995). Such photos may also help show the
extent of a victim's injuries, or tend to establish elements of the offense such as intent,
premeditation, or knowledge. Yates, 161 Wn.2d at 768-69; State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wn.2d
789, 806-07, 659 P.2d 488 (1983).
While autopsy photos are often relevant, they can also be prejudicial and
unnecessarily cumulative. Trial courts should be wary of admitting autopsy photographs
that are cumulative of other evidence. See Crenshaw, 98 Wn.2d at 807. But while the
law requires restraint, it does not demand "preclusion simply because other less
inflammatory testimonial evidence is available." State v. Stackhouse, 90 Wn. App. 344,
358,957 P.2d 218 (1998).
Here, the trial court appropriately weighed the probative value of the autopsy
photo against its potential for prejudice. The judge stated he admitted the photo because
it would aid the jury's understanding of the medical examiner's testimony and help the
State show a reasonable person would have known the victim was pregnant at the time of
6
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
her death. There is no indication the State sought to use the autopsy photograph for
emotive purposes. Given these circumstances, the trial court had a reasonable basis for
admitting the photo. See Whitaker, 133 Wn. App at 227 ("Unless it is clear from the
record that the primary reason to admit gruesome photographs is to inflame the jury's
passion, appellate courts will uphold the decision of the trial court.").
While the autopsy photo was somewhat cumulative of other evidence, Mr.
Miranda cannot establish any prejudice from its admission. If the jury had been
improperly inflamed by the photo, one would expect the prejudice would have manifested
itself through an adverse finding on the pregnancy aggravator, RCW 9.94A.535(3)(c).
But the jury did not make this finding. When asked if the State had proved Mr. Miranda
knew Abigail Torres was pregnant, the jury answered, "No." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 76.
Given the jury's disposition, it is apparent the photograph had no improper impact on the
verdict.
Accomplice liability jury instruction
The theory of accomplice liability set forth at RCW 9A.08.020 permits the State to
hold individuals accountable for the conduct of others. A person may be found guilty as
an accomplice when, "[w ]ith knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission
of the crime," the person "[s]olicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person
7
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
to commit it," or "[a]ids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it."
RCW 9A.08.020(3)(a)(i)-(ii). Essentially, the State "must prove the substantive crime
was committed and the accused acted with knowledge that he or she was aiding in the
commission of the offense." State v. Lazcano, 188 Wn. App. 338, 363, 354 P.3d 233
(2015).
Mr. Miranda argues the court should not have provided the jury with an
accomplice liability instruction because it lacked evidentiary support. We apply a
sufficiency analysis to this argument. State v. Munden, 81 Wn. App. 192, 195, 913 P.2d
421 (1996).
The State presented sufficient evidence to justify an accomplice liability
instruction. According to the trial testimony, Mr. Miranda and his brothers confronted
Mr. Saucedo about burglarizing Mr. Miranda's apartment. Mr. Miranda and his family
members then abducted Mr. Saucedo and his female companions and took them out to the
farm. While it is unclear exactly who did what at the murder scene, the State's evidence
shows Mr. Miranda played a significant role. Mr. Miranda procured a firearm before
going out to the farm and he confessed to firing shots at the victims. Although Mr.
Miranda's family members may have also facilitated the victims' deaths, the State's
evidence showed Mr. Miranda was closely involved. The totality of the evidence
8
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
provided a strong basis for the jury to find Mr. Miranda liable as either a principal or an
accomplice to all three murders.
Lesser included jury instruction
At trial and on appeal, Mr. Miranda has argued that the trial court should have
instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of second degree murder. While second
degree (intentional) murder legally qualifies as a lesser included offense to aggravated
first degree (premediated) murder, the trial court denied Mr. Miranda's request because it
was factually inapplicable. We review the trial court's assessment for abuse of discretion.
State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16, 343 P.3d 357 (2015).
A lesser included instruction is only factually appropriate when the affirmative
evidence at trial supports an inference that the lesser crime was committed. In assessing
the factual basis for a lesser included instruction, courts view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the requesting party. State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-
56, 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). A lesser included instruction is appropriate if the trial evidence
affirmatively tends to show the lesser included offense was committed to the exclusion of
the greater offense. Id. at 455. A lesser included instruction is not warranted simply
because the jury might disbelieve the State's evidence. Id. at 456.
\
lI
l 9
!
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
To qualify for an instruction on the lesser included offense of second degree
murder, Mr. Miranda was obliged to point to facts suggesting the victims were murdered
in a manner that did not involve premeditation. See RCW 9A.32.050(1)(a). As
recognized by the trial court, no affirmative facts support this scenario.
To the extent one believes (as the jury did) that Mr. Miranda was responsible for
killing the three victims, the evidence supported only premeditation. Even if one could
interpret the evidence to suggest Mr. Miranda originally abducted the victims with the
intent to scare them, not kill them, the evidence from the murder scene shows that once
everyone was out at the farm, the murders were committed with deliberate intent. Unlike
Condon, there is no evidence of a startling event or provocation that might have led
Mr. Miranda and his companions to kill the victims. To the contrary, the forensic
evidence indicates the murders were dispassionate and methodical. Two of the victims
were shot at close range without any signs of resistance. Although the injuries to the third
victim suggest she did not immediately die after being shot, the victim's struggle
appeared purely defensive. There is no indication the victim engaged in some sort of
affirmative or surprising conduct that could have prompted Mr. Miranda and his family
members to fire shots. While one could speculate as to some sort of scenario whereby the
victims provoked an attack, there is no affirmative evidence supporting such a hypothesis.
10
No. 33958-1-111
State v. Miranda
l
j
Speculation is not sufficient to justify a lesser included instruction.
I
f Because the affirmative evidence was only suggestive of one crime-premediated
first degree murder-the court's instructional decision was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Pennell, J.
WE CONCUR:
Siddoway, J.
11