Appeals court orders new trial for Fresno man convicted of killing his girlfriend
The First District Court of Appeal granted convicted killer Brandon Moreno of Fresno a new trial based on hearsay evidence the court said was “erroneously admitted” during his 2020 hearing.
Moreno, 34, was found guilty of second-degree murder for the beating death of his girlfriend, 32-year-old Yanina Olivarez of Tulare. He is currently serving 35 years to life at Salinas Valley State Prison.
During his trial, several witnesses described Moreno as a controlling, jealous and violent man. But Moreno denied he hurt Olivarez. Moreno told police he found Olivarez on Jan. 19, 2019, lying on the bed of her studio apartment in east-central Fresno.
Olivarez’s body was badly bruised and bloody. Moreno took her to the hospital, where she died 15 hours later. The coroner listed her cause of death as blunt force head trauma.
Lacking a substantial amount of physical evidence, prosecutor Elana Smith relied on the testimony of Olivarez’s friends, coworkers and family to try and convince the jury Moreno was the killer.
Smith declined to comment Thursday.
But the court, in its Sept. 21 opinion written by Justice Mark B. Simons, stated that “a substantial amount of evidence was erroneously admitted.”
Among that evidence was testimony from witnesses who said Moreno was jealous and controlling and that “Olivarez stated directly or indirectly that she was afraid of appellant (Moreno) and/or wanted to leave him.”
Another witness testified that Olivarez told her Moreno “physically harmed her by giving her visible bruises or pulling her by the hair and sexually assaulting her.”
Simons noted that there was other evidence that Moreno was jealous and controlling, including testimony from one witness who said he received an angry phone call from Moreno telling him to stay away from Olivarez. Another witness told the jury that Moreno sternly asked a male coworker why he was talking to Olivarez and videos from Olivarez’s phone showing her documenting her location, a request from Moreno.
“But evidence that appellant was jealous and controlling is substantially different from evidence that appellant was physically violent with Olivarez and her son and that Olivarez was afraid of him,” Simons wrote. “No properly admitted evidence established the latter facts, which were highly prejudicial in a case where no direct evidence identified appellant as the perpetrator.”
During the jury’s deliberations, they could not agree on first-degree murder and settled on second-degree murder. The court found that telling.
“The fact that the jury reported an inability to reach a verdict on either count strongly suggests the jury was divided on whether appellant was the perpetrator at all. Accordingly, we conclude, “considering the record as a whole, there is a reasonable chance that had the complained-of evidence been excluded, the result of the proceeding would have been more favorable to [appellant],” Simons wrote.
Moreno’s defense attorney Emily Takao was pleased with the court’s ruling.
“The evidence was very circumstantial, so I am glad Mr. Moreno is getting another opportunity to present his case,” she said.
