Harmless to Instruct in Murder Case That Drugs ‘Are Poison’

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Page 4

Court of Appeal:

Harmless to Instruct in Murder Case That Drugs ‘Are Poison’

Opinion Says While Instruction Relieved Burden of Proving Element of Murder-by-Poisoning, Error Was Not Prejudicial Where There Were Alternative Theories, Jury Found Premeditation

By a MetNews Staff Writer

GERALD ROWE
defendant

Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has upheld the special circumstances murder conviction of a man who was accused of torturing a 23-year-old drug addict in his hotel room by putting a noose around his neck, beating him, and injecting him with an unknown substance before throwing him into the San Francisco Bay, declaring that the use of instructions defining certain street drugs found in the victim’s system as “poison” was harmless error.

At issue is language added to a murder-by-poisoning instruction and a related special circumstances advisement providing that each of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine “is a poison.”

Presiding Justice James M. Humes authored Friday’s unpublished opinion, joined in by Justices Monique Langhorne Wilson and Charles A. Smiley. Humes acknowledged that the instructions improperly removed the burden on the prosecution to prove an element of the murder-by-poison theory of liability but reasoned that the error was harmless in light of the jury’s finding of premeditation in an accompanying conspiracy charge, saying:

“[B]y returning the murder conviction the jury necessarily ‘agree[d] that the People…proved that [the defendant] committed murder,’ and even if some of the jurors relied on the poison-murder theory, the jury’s conspiracy verdict established that all the jurors also found that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Thus, [the defendant’s] challenge to his murder conviction fails.”

First-Degree Murder

The question arose after Gerald Rowe was convicted of first-degree murder and a related conspiracy charge after the body of George Randall-Saldivar was found floating near Pier 39 in San Francisco in February 2019. His corpse tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl.

After an alleged co-conspirator, Angel Anderson, purportedly implicated Rowe, police searched his hotel room, finding drugs and video footage showing the victim smoking methamphetamine with the defendant and Anderson, before being strung up from a noose, beaten, and eventually injected with an unknown white substance. Shortly after the injection, he began to convulse.

Anderson is seen on the footage retrieving a suitcase after his movements began to subside, and the two suspects placed the victim, who may have still been alive, inside. They left carrying the bag and returned to the room later without it.

During trial, the prosecution presented expert evidence suggesting that the victim died from an overdose of fentanyl or a combination of the drugs, with asphyxia due to being placed in the suitcase being a “significant contributor.”

After the challenged language was proposed, Rowe’s counsel asked to add that “any substance including water…can be a poison. It’s the amount that constitutes whether it’s a poison or not.” San Francisco Superior Court Judge Alexandra Gordon declined the request, indicating it was a matter for argument.

Gordon sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole in April 2024, following true findings by the jury on torture and poison special circumstances.

Instruction on Poison

Humes wrote:

“[T]he parties agree that the challenged instructions’ statement that fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine all constitute ‘poison’ violated Rowe’s constitutional rights by removing an element of the crime and special circumstance from the jury’s consideration. They also agree that the applicable standard for assessing prejudice is whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt….”

He pointed to jurisprudence finding that, where a jury is instructed on alternate principles of liability, some of which are later found to be legally invalid, courts are instructed to consider the findings and ask whether any rational jury would have been able to declare the defendant guilty under a valid theory based on those conclusions.

Applying that standard, the jurist opined:

“We agree with the Attorney General that Rowe’s conviction of conspiracy to commit murder establishes that the jury necessarily found the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, which is sufficient to uphold the first-degree murder verdict….The mental state required for conviction of conspiracy to commit murder necessarily establishes premeditation and deliberation of the target offense of murder—hence all murder conspiracies are conspiracies to commit first degree murder.”

He added:

“As for the special circumstance, we conclude that the instructional error was harmless because no rational juror could have harbored a reasonable doubt about whether fentanyl, methamphetamine, or cocaine met the definition of ‘poison.’…Although we agree with Rowe that it was hotly contested whether an injection of one or more of these substances caused Randall-Saldivar’s death, [the instruction] required a finding that Rowe ‘killed…Randall[-]Saldivar by the administration of poison,’ i.e., not only that ‘poison’ was administered but also that it caused the death.’ (Italics added.)”

The case is People v. Rowe, A170674.