Tuesday, September 22, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Victim’s ‘Dying With COVID’ Did Not Gut Murder Conviction
Opinion Rejects View That Defendant Cannot Be Said to Have Killed Elderly Neighbor Where Decedent Died Months After Assault With Cause Being Listed on Death Record as Viral
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has rejected a defendant’s attempt to overturn his murder conviction based on the fact that the 67-year-old victim died months after the brutal attack with “COVID-19” being listed as the cause of death on the official records.
Porter Ranch attorney Mark Alan Hart, appointed counsel for the defendant, argued on appeal that the victim suffered from “pre-existing medical conditions of high blood pressure and heart disease” that, together with the brain injury sustained during the assault, “put him at a higher risk of death from Covid-19.” He continued:
“The combination of multiple medical conditions possibly contributing to [the victim’s] death from Covid-19 support the inference that the head injury was not a dependent cause. Inferring [otherwise] is not supported by solid and credible evidence….[N]othing about the injury to [the decedent’s] brain was fatal. [The victim] was stabilized before he contracted Covid-19. Covid was the substantial factor causing death.”
Hart added:
“A pathologist who conducted an autopsy on [the decedent’s] brain…considered the length of time [the victim] survived after the injuries inflicted in September 2021. That doctor opined the injuries could have been survivable, even if they could be a contributing factor to a disease.”
Substantial Factor
Justice Julia C. Kelety authored Friday’s unpublished opinion rejecting the defendant’s characterization and saying:
“For the conduct…to be considered the proximate cause of a victim’s death, that conduct must be deemed ‘a substantial factor contributing to’ the death….If the jury finds that death would not have occurred when it did without the defendant’s conduct, then it need not determine whether that conduct or some other concurrent cause should be considered the principal or primary cause of the victim’s death.”
Kelety acknowledged that the victim had been diagnosed with the disease prior to his death but remarked that “[h]ere there plainly was…evidence” that the brain-injury induced by the attack was a substantial factor of the victim’s death even if other causes contributed to his declining health in the wake of the attack.
Murder Charges
Seeking to upend his conviction was Juan Luis Gonzalez, who was convicted of murder and felony domestic violence with great bodily injury, among other charges, relating to a September 2021 incident in which he attacked both his then-girlfriend and her elderly neighbor, Felipe Facundo, knocking both to the ground before repeatedly striking each one in the face. Facundo died on Jan. 29, 2022, having never made it home after the attack.
The victim was diagnosed with a debilitating traumatic brain injury following the assault, but he was released from the hospital in early October and sent a skilled nursing center.
He was later sent back to the medical center, where he tested positive for COVID-19 prior to his death.
After San Diego Superior Court Judge Kelly C. Mok sentenced him to prison, Gonzalez appealed, challenging only the murder conviction. Neither Friday’s opinion nor the superior court website provide the length of time imposed at sentencing.
Too Remote
Kelety said:
“In examining Gonzalez’s argument that his beating of Facundo was too remote a cause to be considered a sufficient proximate cause of Facundo’s death 132 days later, we focus on the concept of concurrent causation.”
She acknowledged jurisprudence establishing that, while the question is normally reserved for the jury, in some instances, undisputed evidence may reveal a cause so remote that no rational trier of fact could find the required link between a defendant’s actions and the death in question. However, she declined to find that Gonzalez had made such a showing, remarking:
“As Gonzalez himself concedes, the testimony of medical professionals at trial included statements to the effect that injuries Facundo sustained in the beating ‘played a significant role in [his] death’ and that the cause of Facundo’s death was ‘complications of blunt force head trauma.’…That some of the evidence presented to the jury might have supported contrary conclusions is of no consequence.”
The jurist added:
“[T]here was evidence in this case from which it may be reasonably inferred that Gonzalez’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing Facundo’s death. We discern no basis on which to conclude that that evidence was not reasonable, credible, and of solid value.”
The case is People v. Gonzalez, D085130.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company