California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a handwritten statement found at a crime scene expressing the defendant's rage and belief about what victims were doing has significant probative value for provocation defense that cannot be substantially outweighed by prejudice concerns under Evidence Code section 352, under circumstances where the statement is the only evidence of provocation and is central to the defense theory.

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

Defendant Appellant was Pedro Thomas DeLeon Tzul — the boyfriend who killed his girlfriend and her brother after believing he discovered them having sex.

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

The suit sounded in murder. No cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Tzul lived with his girlfriend Martha Garcia for six years. In May/June 2021, Martha's 21-year-old brother Antonio moved in with them. On June 22, 2021, Tzul hid in the apartment and believed he heard Martha and Antonio having sex. He attacked them with a knife, stabbing Martha 29 times and Antonio 37 times. He wrapped their bodies in carpets, positioned an air conditioning unit 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 its probative value was substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, forcing Tzul to testify to get the note into evidence. The jury convicted Tzul of first degree murder for killing Martha and second degree murder for killing Antonio.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in denying Tzul's Penal Code section 1118.1 motion for acquittal? 2. Did the trial court err in excluding the handwritten note under Evidence Code section 352? 3. Was the error prejudicial?

The Appellate Court held the trial court did not err in denying the section 1118.1 motion because there was substantial evidence of premeditation (air conditioner placement and manner of killing), but the court prejudicially erred in excluding the note under section 352 because the note had significant probative value as the only evidence of provocation central to the defense and could have been admitted with a limiting instruction, and forcing Tzul to testify to introduce the note caused prejudice.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant has other substantial evidence of provocation available, when the excluded evidence is not central to the defense theory, or when the defendant would have testified regardless of the evidentiary ruling.

The case leaves open questions about the precise boundaries of when forcing a defendant to testify to introduce evidence violates constitutional rights, and the exact standards for applying section 1252 trustworthiness requirements to self-incriminating statements made immediately after crimes.