People v. Rubio CA2/7

Filed 9/22/25 P. v. Rubio CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION SEVEN


 THE PEOPLE,                                                 B336583

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                XCNVA158478)

 JUAN RUBIO,

       Defendant and Appellant.


      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed.
      Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Ana R. Duarte, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    _________________________
       Juan Rubio appeals from a judgment of conviction after a
jury found him guilty of the first degree murder of his wife,
Celina Rubio (Celina). The jury also found true the special
allegation Rubio personally used a firearm during the
commission of the murder. On appeal, Rubio contends the trial
court abused its discretion by refusing to admit into evidence
excerpts from Rubio’s journal and admitting certain pages of
Celina’s journal. We affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


A.     The Evidence at Trial
       1.    Events leading up to the shooting
       Rubio and Celina were married in 2005 and had one child
together, Justin R., who was 15 years old at the time of the
murder. Celina had an adult son from a prior relationship,
Michael Martinez, and Rubio had an adult son from a prior
relationship, Jonathan Rubio (Jonathan). In 2022, Rubio, Celina,
Justin, and Martinez lived together in the family home.
       Around 2020, problems developed in Rubio and Celina’s
marriage. In a journal entry dated July 12, 2020 Celia wrote she
believed Rubio was an alcoholic and she did not trust him to take
care of Justin. The couple fought often about finances and
Rubio’s failure to help around the house. Around this time Rubio
and Celina began sleeping in separate rooms. Rubio slept in the
primary bedroom and Celina slept in Justin’s room. In 2021
Celina told Justin she wanted to divorce Rubio. Rubio mentioned
to Jonathan that Celina wanted a divorce.
       The issues in the marriage escalated in 2022 when Celina
began dating a former coworker, Jose Casas. Rubio suspected
that Celina was dating someone, and in February 2022 he placed




                                2
a tracker on her car. Rubio showed Justin the tracker on his
phone, and on several occasions Rubio told Justin that Celina
was lying about her whereabouts because the tracker showed her
car was not in the location she claimed. Martinez saw Rubio
looking underneath Celina’s car three times in early 2022, and
Martinez found the tracker under Celina’s car after the killing.
       Rubio also told Justin that on one occasion he went to the
location where Celina’s car was parked and waited in the parking
lot for her to return. A car appeared and dropped off Celina.
When Celina noticed Rubio, she asked what he was doing, and he
said he was getting coffee and happened to see her car parked in
the parking lot, so he waited for her. In late March 2022 Rubio
sent his brother pictures of Rubio’s handwritten notes
documenting times Celina had lied about where she was.
       On February 22, 2022 Rubio texted Jonathan a picture of a
letter from his bank dated February 7. The letter was addressed
to Rubio and stated the bank had received a “legal order” from an
attorney requiring the bank to provide certain bank records. The
bank suggested Rubio contact a lawyer if he wanted to take legal
action with respect to the request. Rubio told Jonathan that
Celina had Jonathan’s social security number, so Jonathan
should withdraw money from the bank, for example $50,000,
“just in case.” Jonathan responded, “She’s not divorcing me. I
have nothing to worry about.”
       The next day Rubio sent a text message to a friend stating,
“Need a real one a gun.” On March 11, 2022 Rubio sent several
text messages to another friend asking the friend to purchase a
gun and send it to Rubio. Over the next few days Rubio
exchanged text messages with a friend regarding purchase of a
gun at a gun show or a pawn shop. On March 17 Rubio texted a




                                3
friend a picture of a gun permit with Rubio’s name on it. Rubio
texted the same friend several times between March 21 and
April 1 asking what type of ammunition to buy and where to buy
it.
       Justin recounted an incident when Celina told him she had
seen Rubio putting something in her coffee. Rubio told Justin
and Celina that it was just water. Rubio asked Celina, “Do you
really think I would hurt the mother of my kids?” Celina replied,
“I don’t know.” The prosecution also introduced a copy of a text
message dated March 30, 2022 from Celina to a friend in which
Celina stated, “I caught him on Friday putting something in my
coffee . . . .” On March 31 Rubio sent his brother pictures of
Celina’s journal in which Celina recounted the coffee incident.
       On April 18 Rubio sent his brother a picture of an undated
entry from Rubio’s journal that read, “I really hope I fuck up your
plans you had after that I’m gone and your future you had with
the guy. You were planning to have him move in to this house.”
Also introduced into evidence was another undated journal entry
written by Rubio that stated, “Celina and Zinnia [Rubio’s niece] I
hope with this you [two] have a lot to talk about for the rest of
your life.”
       On May 26, 2022 Rubio was served with a petition for
dissolution of marriage.

       2.    The murder
       On the evening of May 29, 2022 Celina and Casas went to a
movie. After she returned home, Celina texted Casas around
10:30 p.m. that Rubio had prevented her from getting her
belongings. Celina’s texts stated, “I need to have access to my
stuff,” and “Either he unlocks it or I call the cops.” Around 10:40




                                 4
p.m. Celina and Casas exchanged messages saying “Good Night”
and using “kissy emoji faces.”
       Justin was in his bedroom when Celina came home from
the movie. When she got home, she went into Justin’s room to
say good night. A few minutes later Justin heard Celina in the
hallway saying, “What the hell are you doing? Get the hell out of
my face.” Justin then heard gunshots and Celina calling his
name and screaming for him to call the police. Justin stayed in
his room and called Jonathan, then the police. Justin heard a
total of five gunshots—two quickly, then a pause followed by two
more gunshots followed by another pause, and the final gunshot
occurred while Justin was on the phone with Jonathan. The
transcript of Justin’s call to emergency services showed the call
was made at 10:53 p.m.
       The Rubios’ home had a motion activated security camera
located outside the front door, facing the street. The camera
began recording when the motion sensor was activated, for
example, when a car drove by the house, and the camera would
stop recording when the motion ceased. The prosecutor played a
video for the jury that was taken by the security camera at the
time of the murder. The timestamp on the video was 10:50 p.m.
According to the prosecutor’s description of the video, which
Rubio does not dispute, six seconds after the video begins two
gunshots can be heard, one at the six-second mark and one at the
eight-second mark. Celina can then be heard calling Justin’s
name three times. The video continues for seven seconds before
ending.
       Celina was shot a total of four times: in the right arm, left
thigh, left shoulder, and left lower chest. She was found seated
on the floor of the kitchen with her head slumped down toward




                                 5
her knees and was pronounced dead at the scene. Rubio was
found on the floor near Celina with a gunshot wound under his
chin. Doctors later determined Rubio had a bullet lodged in his
forehead. The treating physician testified Rubio had likely shot
himself under the jaw, the bullet travelled upward through his
jaw and nose, and then lodged in his forehead.1

       3.    The crime scene investigation and autopsy
       The police officers processing the crime scene found two
bullets on the floor near Celina and a bullet hole in the hallway
wall approximately 45 inches high. Celina’s phone was on the
floor in the hallway.
       The medical examiner who performed the autopsy on
Celina testified regarding her injuries. As noted, Celina was shot
four times. Her right arm had an entrance wound on the front of
the arm with an exit wound on her rear right shoulder. The
bullet was fired at close range, likely within two feet. The
gunshot to Celina’s thigh was also fired from the front with an
exit wound on the back of the thigh. The bullet that passed
through Celina’s left shoulder entered at the top of the shoulder
with an exit wound in her armpit. If she had been standing or
sitting upright, the bullet would have traveled downward from
the top of the shoulder through the armpit. If Celina had been
seated and slumped forward, the gun would have needed to be
held parallel to the floor to achieve that trajectory. None of these
wounds was life-threatening.
       The fatal gunshot was fired from within two feet, and the
bullet entered Celina’s left lower chest. The bullet went through


1     Rubio did not testify at trial.




                                  6
her heart and lung before lodging in her back. This wound was
immediately life-threatening, and it was unlikely Celina would
have been able to call out to Justin after sustaining this injury.
Given the nature of the entrance wound and trajectory of the
bullet, the medical examiner concluded Celina was seated and/or
hunched forward when the fatal shot was fired.

B.     Jury Instructions and Closing Argument
       The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 521
on first degree murder and CALCRIM No. 570 on voluntary
manslaughter based on killing in the heat of passion.
       CALCRIM NO. 521 provides, as read to the jury, “The
defendant is guilty of first degree murder if the People have
proved that he acted willfully, deliberately, and with
premeditation. . . . The defendant acted deliberately if he
carefully weighed the considerations for and against his choice
and, knowing the consequences, decided to kill. The defendant
acted with premeditation if he decided to kill before completing
the act that caused death. [¶] The length of time the person
spends considering whether to kill does not alone determine
whether the killing is deliberate and premeditated. The amount
of time required for deliberation and premeditation may vary
from person to person according to the circumstances. A decision
to kill made rashly, impulsively, or without careful consideration
is not deliberate and premeditated. On the other hand, a cold,
calculated decision to kill can be reached quickly. The test is the
extent of the reflection not the length of time.”
       CALCRIM No. 570 provides in part, as given to the jury, “A
killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary
manslaughter if the defendant killed someone because of a
sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. [¶] The defendant




                                 7
killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of
passion if: [¶] 1. The defendant was provoked; [¶] 2. As a result
of the provocation, the defendant acted rashly and under the
influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning or
judgment; AND [¶] 3. The provocation would have caused a
person of average disposition to act rashly and without due
deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from
judgment. [¶] . . . [¶] [T]he defendant must have acted under the
direct and immediate influence of provocation. . . .”
       During her closing argument, the prosecutor argued Rubio
acted with deliberation and premeditation. The prosecutor’s
theory was that on the night of May 29, Rubio confronted Celina
in the hallway with his gun. The first two shots were fired in the
hallway and hit Celina in the right arm and thigh. The wounds
from those shots were consistent with Celina standing up, and
the bullet hole in the wall was consistent with the trajectory of
the bullet that went through her arm. These must have been the
two shots heard on the security camera audio because once
Celina was shot in the chest, she would not have been able to
scream for Justin. After the first two shots, Celina dropped her
phone in the hallway, where it was later found, walked to the
kitchen, and sat down on the floor. Rubio followed her to the
kitchen and shot her in the shoulder and chest while she was
seated on the floor.
       The prosecutor noted that in the security footage audio,
seven seconds elapsed between the second gunshot and the end of
the recording, during which Celina could be heard calling Justin’s
name. Because Celina yelled for Justin to call the police after the
first two gunshots were fired, and Celina’s plea to call the police
was not heard on the recording, there must have been at least




                                8
seven seconds between the second shot and the third shot. Thus,
the more than seven seconds between the second and third
gunshots were sufficient for Rubio to have reflected and made the
decision to kill Celina. The prosecutor argued, “We don’t know
when the defendant first formed the intent to kill Celina, but we
don’t need to know when he first formed the intent. We don’t
know if it was when he got the letter from [the bank]. We don’t
know if it was when he first decided that he needed to buy a gun.
We don’t know if it was when he put the tracker on her car and
started following her. . . . And you know what, it’s not even
necessary that he premeditated to kill with that first shot that he
took or the second shot he took. There is no doubt that the
defendant intended to kill Celina with deliberation and
premeditation when he shot her in the heart, and that is the only
question in this case.”
       During his closing argument, defense counsel stated the
only issue in the case was Rubio’s mental state at the time of the
murder and whether he acted deliberately with premeditation or
rashly in the heat of passion. The defense theory was that Rubio
was provoked by the messages with “kissy face emojis” exchanged
between Celina and Casas shortly before the killing. The
messages “caused [Rubio] to act so rashly without due
deliberation.” Defense counsel argued it was unreasonable to
conclude Rubio had a plan to kill Celina because “there [are] at
least three months where he could have done it; right? Buys the
gun in March. He’s tracking her. . . . If he really wanted to
premeditate, deliberate, and first degree murder kill her, there
were so many chances that he could have done it. What are the
odds that the time he does it is within minutes of her receiving [a
message] from her lover?”




                                9
      In addition, defense counsel cited two of Rubio’s journal
entries to bolster the argument Rubio had not planned to kill
Celina. He discussed the journal entry where Rubio wrote he
hoped Celina and his niece had a lot to talk about “for the rest of
your life” and the entry in which Rubio wrote he hoped to “fuck
up” Celina’s plans with Casas for after Rubio was gone. These
entries, defense counsel argued, showed that Rubio contemplated
Celina would still be alive after he had committed suicide: “The
plan was not to kill [Celina]. . . . [Rubio’s] intention was to kill
himself until that triggering event, until that provoking event,
when his confirmation was received of the affair, and then he lost
it.”

C.    The Verdict and Sentencing
      The jury found Rubio guilty of first degree murder (Pen.
Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation Rubio
personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code
section 12022.5, subdivision (a). After considering applicable
mitigating and aggravating factors, the trial court sentenced
Rubio to an aggregate term of 35 years to life, consisting of an
indeterminate term of 25 years to life for first degree murder,
plus a consecutive determinate term of 10 years (the upper term)
for the firearm enhancement.
      Rubio timely appealed.

                          DISCUSSION

A.    The Challenged Evidentiary Rulings
      On appeal, Rubio argues the trial court improperly
excluded from evidence two entries from Rubio’s journal and
improperly admitted an entry from Celina’s journal. The first




                                 10
entry from Rubio’s journal consists of two undated handwritten
pages titled, “Me Juan Rubio, my will to Jonathan Justin Rubio.”
The entry explained how Rubio wanted his belongings to be
distributed after his death, including that Celina could give his
wedding ring to Martinez. The entry also stated Rubio did not
want Celina to manage his money and he did not “want Celina
screwing over my son Jonathan.” Defense counsel represented
the entries were written around March 22, 2022.
      The prosecutor objected to admission of the will on hearsay
grounds. Defense counsel argued the will was a “nonhearsay
legal act” and was admissible pursuant to Evidence Code
section 1330, which states evidence contained in a will is not
made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if certain conditions are
met, including that the “matter stated would be relevant to an
issue as to an interest in the property.” (Evid. Code, § 1330,
subd. (b).) The court sustained the objection to the will, finding
the exception was intended to allow admission of a will for
purposes of determining ownership and conveyances of real and
personal property, and not “assertions” made in the will for other
purposes.
      The second entry in Rubio’s journal was an undated
handwritten entry in which Rubio wrote, “Celina I hope you keep
on dancing in the kitchen to your music and please don’t stop
whistling all over the house. . . .” Defense counsel argued this
journal entry and the will were admissible pursuant to the rule of
completeness under Evidence Code section 356, which provides:
“Where part of [a] writing is given in evidence by one party, the
whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse
party[,] . . . and when a detached . . . writing is given in evidence,
any other . . . writing which is necessary to make it understood




                                 11
may also be given in evidence.” Defense counsel argued that
because the prosecution was permitted to submit some of Rubio’s
journal entries into evidence, Rubio was entitled to submit other
entries for completeness. Defense counsel argued the proffered
journal entries contradicted the prosecutor’s premeditation
theory because “Celina Rubio is mentioned as being alive” in
them (and therefore Rubio did not intend to kill her at that
point).
      The court found Rubio’s journal entries were not admissible
under Evidence Code section 356 because the proffered entries
did not “relate[] to the same concept or idea” as the admitted
entries. Nor were the admitted journal entries “confusing for the
jury” such that additional material was necessary for the jury to
understand them.
      Finally, the entry from Celina’s journal that Rubio argues
was improperly admitted was the one in which Celina described
Rubio putting something in her coffee. Defense counsel objected
to the journal entry as hearsay. The prosecutor argued Rubio
had taken a picture of the journal entry and texted it to his
brother, making the entry admissible to show its effect on the
viewer. The trial court overruled the objection.

B.    Standard of Review
      We review a trial court’s ruling on evidentiary issues,
including hearsay objections, for abuse of discretion. (People v.
Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 [“an appellate court applies
the abuse of discretion standard of review to any ruling by a trial
court on the admissibility of evidence, including one that turns on
the hearsay nature of the evidence in question”]; People v. Yates
(2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 474, 484-485 [same].)




                                12
        We will not reverse a judgment for the improper admission
or exclusion of evidence in violation of state statutory law unless
it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the
defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error,
as articulated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. (People
v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 840; see People v. Arias (1996)
13 Cal.4th 92, 157 [error in excluding evidence under Evid. Code,
§ 356 evaluated under standard of prejudice for state law error
under Watson]; People v. Landau (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 850, 866
[“As a general rule, the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence
will not result in a reversal unless it is reasonably probable the
defendant would have received a more favorable result had the
evidence not been admitted.”].)2


2     We reject Rubio’s contention we must assess any error
under the federal constitutional standard of Chapman v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 at page 24, which requires any
error be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Rubio’s argument
that admission of Celina’s journal entry violated his right to
confrontation fails because he has not shown Celina’s statements
in the entry were testimonial under Crawford v. Washington
(2004) 541 U.S. 36, 68-69, which requires that “the statement
must have been given and taken primarily for the purpose
ascribed to testimony—to establish or prove some past fact for
possible use in a criminal trial.” (People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th
965, 984, italics omitted; see People v. Lopez (2013) 56 Cal.4th
1028, 1065-1066 [murder victim’s “recording of the day’s events
in her private diary . . . fall outside the scope of the confrontation
clause, which is concerned with ‘formal and solemn accusatory
statements . . . in the context of criminal investigations or
inquiries’”].)
      Nor has Rubio shown any error deprived him of due process
by preventing him from providing a defense and rendering his




                                 13
C.     Any Error in the Trial Court’s Evidentiary Rulings Was
       Harmless
       Even if the trial court abused its discretion in making some
or all of the evidentiary rulings excluding the two entries in
Rubio’s journal and admitting Celina’s journal entry, the errors
were harmless. In order to prove first degree murder, the
prosecution was required to show the murder “‘occurred as the
result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than
unconsidered or rash impulse.’ [Citation.] The reflection may be
arrived at quickly; it need not span a specific or extended period
of time.” (People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 354-355; see
People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 282 [“‘“‘The true test is not
the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection.
Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold,
calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly’”’”]; CALCRIM
No. 521.)
       The prosecutor argued Rubio could have decided to kill
Celina as early as February 2022 when he received the letter
from the bank, or over the next few months during which he
sought and purchased a gun and ammunition. However, the
prosecutor also argued Rubio made the decision to kill Celina on
the night of the murder. The evidence to support the latter

trial fundamentally unfair. (See People v. Partida (2005)
37 Cal.4th 428, 439 [“[a]bsent fundamental unfairness, state law
error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson
test”]; People v. Dryden (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1025-1026
[“For the erroneous admission of evidence to amount to a denial
of due process, the evidence must have been ‘“sufficiently
material to provide the basis for conviction or to remove a
reasonable doubt that would have existed on the record without
it.”’”].)




                                14
theory was compelling, and the evidence Rubio now argues was
improperly admitted or excluded would have had minimal, if any,
relevance to Rubio’s state of mind that night. And the evidence
Rubio focuses on regarding Rubio’s intent during the months
leading to the killing was duplicative of other evidence.
       The jury heard evidence that Rubio initiated a
confrontation with Celina on the night of the murder by
approaching her in the hallway with a gun and, after she asked
him what he was doing and told him to get away from her, he
shot her twice. Her body was found in a seated position in the
kitchen, showing she must have been followed by Rubio as she
moved from the hallway to the kitchen, while she screamed for
Justin to call the police. Only then, at least seven seconds after
the second gunshot, did Rubio shoot Celina in the chest from less
than two feet away. As the autopsy showed, it was the gunshot
wound to the left chest that caused Celina’s death. This provided
ample evidence from which the jury could have reasonably
concluded Rubio made the deliberate decision to murder Celina
on the night of the murder, regardless of whether he had
previously planned to kill her. (See People v. San Nicolas (2004)
34 Cal.4th 614, 658 [“Defendant stated that he saw April’s
reflection in the bathroom mirror before turning around and
stabbing her. . . . This brief period between seeing April’s
reflection and stabbing her is adequate for defendant to have
reached the deliberate and premeditated decision to kill April.”];
People v. Vorise (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 312, 319 [after defendant
and victim had a brief argument, “firing of his gun twice at close
range into the chest of an incapacitated victim supports a finding
Vorise made a cold, calculated decision to kill the victim”].)




                               15
       With respect to Rubio’s state of mind in the months leading
up to the murder, Rubio argues the exclusion of his journal
entries was prejudicial because the entries demonstrated “Rubio’s
understanding he would be dead and Celina would be alive,
something that undercut the prosecution’s theory of months of
planning and suggested some sort of provocation on May 29.”
This argument is unavailing. There was other evidence admitted
at trial that contained similar statements from which the jury
could have concluded Rubio believed Celina would outlive him.
For example, the trial court admitted Rubio’s journal entry that
said with respect to Celina’s future life with Casas, “I really hope
I fuck up your plans you had after that I’m gone” and another
entry in which Rubio said he hoped Celina and Rubio’s niece
would “have a lot to talk about for the rest of your life.” Based on
that evidence, defense counsel argued to the jury that Rubio had
intended to kill only himself until being provoked the night of the
murder. It is not reasonably probable that two additional journal
entries expressing similar sentiments would have resulted in the
jury reaching a different conclusion regarding Rubio’s state of
mind on the night of the murder.
       Further, Rubio’s argument that he was provoked into
killing Celine in the heat of passion after seeing the affectionate
text messages between Celina and Casas is based on
speculation—there was no evidence Rubio saw those messages.
Moreover, admission of additional journal entries showing that in
the months before the killing Rubio expected Celina to outlive
him would not have bolstered his argument that on the night of
the killing he acted in the heat of passion.
       The same analysis applies to Rubio’s argument that the
trial court abused its discretion in admitting Celina’s journal




                                16
entry recounting how Rubio tampered with her coffee. The jury
heard evidence of that incident through Celina’s March 30 text
message to a friend stating she caught Rubio tampering with her
coffee and Justin’s testimony that Celina told him about the
tampering incident. Additional corroboration of that event is not
reasonably likely to have influenced the jury’s view of Rubio’s
state of mind on the night of the murder.
       In light of the compelling evidence that Rubio had time to
deliberate on the night of the killing and the lack of evidence of
provocation on that night, it is not reasonably probable the
exclusion of Rubio’s journals and the admission of Celina’s
journal would have changed the outcome at trial.3

                         DISPOSITION


      The judgment is affirmed.




                                          FEUER, J.
We concur:



             MARTINEZ, P. J.              STONE, J.




3      Because we find any error was harmless, we do not reach
the Attorney General’s argument that Rubio forfeited some of his
arguments. Nor do we address Rubio’s contention that, if
forfeited, he received ineffective assistance of counsel.




                                17