Munoz v. Superior Court of Alameda County
Annotate this Case
The Hayward Police Department investigated the East Las Palmas street gang, of which Munoz and Villegas were members. They wiretapped Villegas's phone. While Munoz was in custody, he referred to killing Bagshaw during a phonecall with Villegas. The two texted about the plan and spoke later that day. Munoz indicated where Bagshaw would be (Fog Line) and what he would be wearing, stating, “R.I.P. The police had Bagshaw notified of the threat, went to Fog Line, and stationed themselves in highly visible positions. In a call, Munoz asked Villegas whether he was ready to go. Villegas answered affirmatively. Several texts followed, many concerning the police presence. No shooting occurred. An officer saw a car associated with Villegas drive by.
Munoz was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. He argued that the corpus delicti rule prohibited consideration of a defendant’s own statements absent the presentation of independent evidence regarding the elements of the crime. The court of appeal declined to grant relief. The statements at issue were not subject to the rule; the recorded conversations and the statements made during those conversations constituted part of the criminal agreement central to the charge of conspiracy. “If the primary purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to ensure that a crime was actually committed, what better proof could there be of a criminal conspiracy than the words of the alleged conspirators actually constituting the agreement itself?”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.