Ornelas Jurors Ask Judge About Manslaughter Rules

Jurors in the trial of of Danny David Ornelas asked questions in court Friday afternoon that indicate they may be moving toward a manslaughter, rather than a murder, verdict in the case.

About an hour and a half later, however, the jury recessed for the weekend without having reached a decision. The trial began three weeks ago in Orange County Superior Court in Westminster. Judge Luis A. Cardenas ordered the jurors to resume their deliberations at 9:30 a.m. Monday.

Ornelas, 19, of Huntington Park, is accused of second-degree murder in the death last Sept. 1 of Debbie Killelea, 37, of Newport Beach. Killelea was fatally injured when a speeding car driven by Ornelas struck her as she was walking with two of her children in a narrow alley behind her home on Balboa Peninsula. The incident was accidentally videotaped by a young man riding in the car Ornelas was driving.

Statewide Interest

The videotape, along with the outrage community members expressed over her death, has sparked statewide interest in the case.

Ornelas’ defense attorney, Ralph Bencangey of Beverly Hills, argued during the trial that Ornelas should have been on trial for manslaughter, not murder. Bencangey said he was encouraged by the jurors’ sending written questions to Cardenas asking about vehicular manslaughter.

The questions, which the judge read aloud in court, asked whether a jury must find multiple elements of guilt to convict a defendant of gross vehicular manslaughter. Cardenas told the jurors that only one element of guilt is necessary for a conviction of that crime.

The jurors also asked Cardenas whether it is necessary to find that a defendant had blood-alcohol level of 0.10 or higher in order to convict him of gross vehicular manslaughter. Cardenas responded that such a finding was not necessary for a defendant to be convicted of that crime.

According to unrebutted testimony presented during the trial, a blood test made Sept. 1 about an hour after Ornelas was arrested showed that he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.18--almost twice the minimum of 0.10 that state law says constitutes proof of drunkenness.

A curious twist in the trial was that both the defense attorney and the prosecutor produced expert witnesses to argue that Ornelas was fairly sober at the time of the crash.

The defense’s expert witness testified that the strong rum Ornelas drank just before he got behind the wheel had probably not been absorbed into his bloodstream by the time he hit Killelea. That expert estimated that Ornelas’ was driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.04.

The defense argued that Ornelas had tried to avoid hitting Killelea, and Bencangey has told reporters that part of his strategy was to show that Ornelas was sober enough to have been trying to veer away from Killelea.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Thomas Goethals, by contrast, said his intention was to show that Ornelas was sober enough to have “implied malice” in his hitting Killelea. A finding of implied malice is a necessary element for a second-degree murder conviction in the case.

Implications of Actions

Jurors asked Cardenas questions about the legal definition of implied malice Friday morning. They had told the judge on Thursday that they were “hopelessly deadlocked” and that the question of implied malice was among the stumbling blocks.

The switch that afternoon to questions about gross vehicular manslaughter seemed to indicate that the jury had changed its focus on a possible murder conviction, according to Bencangey.

The judge told the jurors before they began deliberating Tuesday morning that they had five verdict options: guilty of second-degree murder; guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter without intoxication; guilty of simple vehicular manslaughter, or not guilty of any crime.

Ornelas, who looked despondent on Thursday, was smiling outside court late Friday afternoon.

Bencangey said in an interview: “I think my client has a good chance. . . . The questions permitted the court, using the law properly, to make it as easy as possible for them (the jury) to find a verdict of manslaughter. I’m encouraged.”

He added that he did not think the jurors would have asked about manslaughter if they were still focused on a murder conviction. “I don’t think so,” he said, “but I can’t predict what people are thinking. You never know. Apparently they really are having a deadlock, because even after the judge answered those questions they stayed out the rest of the afternoon.”

Goethals, in a brief interview, said he thought the jury was on the verge of delivering a verdict after it asked the manslaughter questions. “Since they did not come back with a verdict, it means they’re still working,” he said. “On we go. I’m still optimistic.”

A second-degree murder conviction carries a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. A conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.