California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a defendant's handwritten note found at a crime scene stating he found victims "having sex" and that this "fills me with rage" is admissible as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's state of mind for provocation defense, under circumstances where the statement about what defendant observed is not hearsay when offered to show defendant's belief rather than truth of the observation, and the statement about defendant's emotional reaction is admissible hearsay under Evidence Code section 1250's state-of-mind exception.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Defendant Appellant was Pedro Thomas DeLeon Tzul — the defendant who killed his girlfriend and her brother and left a handwritten note at the crime scene.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking murder convictions.

The suit sounded in criminal homicide charges. No cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Tzul lived with his girlfriend Martha Garcia for six years, and in 2021 her 21-year-old brother Antonio moved in with them. Tzul became suspicious of Martha and Antonio's relationship and began recording them. On June 22, 2021, Tzul hid under the bed and believed he heard Martha making "sensual sounds" in the bathroom with Antonio. He stabbed Martha 29 times and Antonio 37 times, wrapped their bodies in rugs, positioned an air conditioner to blow cold air on them, and fled to Mexico. Police found a handwritten note at the scene stating "I found her having sex with her own brother and that fills me with rage. I'm asking for forgiveness. I don't know whether God will do it."

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court excluded the handwritten note during the People's case under Evidence Code section 352, ruling that the probative value was substantially outweighed by undue prejudice because the jury would improperly consider the statement as proof that incest actually occurred rather than just evidence of defendant's state of mind.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's Penal Code section 1118.1 motion for judgment of acquittal on first degree murder 2. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in excluding the handwritten note under Evidence Code section 352 during the People's case

The Appellate Court held the trial court did not err in denying the section 1118.1 motion because there was substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation (air conditioner purchase and placement, manner of killing), but prejudicially erred in excluding the note under section 352 because the note had significant probative value as the only evidence of provocation for defendant's heat-of-passion defense and the jury could have followed a limiting instruction to consider it only for defendant's state of mind, not for the truth of whether incest occurred.

The case is inapplicable when there are other sources of evidence regarding provocation or defendant's state of mind, when the defendant's statement lacks foundation or authentication, when the statement was made under circumstances indicating lack of trustworthiness under Evidence Code section 1252, or when the probative value is minimal compared to the inflammatory nature of the evidence.

The case leaves open questions about the precise boundaries of when similar inflammatory evidence about alleged victim conduct should be admitted with limiting instructions, the application of Evidence Code section 1252 trustworthiness requirements to post-crime defendant statements, and whether different foundational requirements might apply during the prosecution's case-in-chief versus the defense case.