FILED MARCH 14, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 34901-2-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) PRUDENCIO JUAN FRAGOS-RAMIREZ, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Prudencio Juan Fragos-Ramirez (Juan Fragos)1 appeals from
convictions for two counts of aggravated first degree murder of Maria Cruz and her son,
L.L.C. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding third party perpetrator
evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
The bodies of Ms. Cruz, 18, and her three-year-old son were discovered in her
burned car about 5:54 p.m. on July 2, 2015, roughly 18-20 minutes after smoke was first
reported. The two victims had last been seen in the company of Mr. Fragos about 5:10-
5:15 p.m. that day. Fragos’s home was about one-half mile from the location where the
car and bodies were discovered.
Appellant’s counsel advised us that his client uses the name Juan Fragos, but that 1
the name in the case caption is his correct name. Br. of Appellant at 1 n.1. No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
There was conflicting evidence whether Fragos and Cruz were in a dating
relationship or not. It did appear that Cruz had been selling large quantities of cocaine
and methamphetamine for Fragos during the final few months of her brief life. In the
days leading up to her death, she had become concerned about having lost some of the
drugs she was supposed to have been selling.
The relevant events of July 2 began with Fragos texting Cruz 160 times, starting
around 3:00 a.m., despite Cruz telling him that she was going to sleep. That afternoon,
he texted her to meet him at his house in an Othello area orchard and directed her to use a
dirt road; she was not to tell anyone where she was due to security reasons. Cruz
attempted to call Fernando Lopez Aguirre, the father of L.L.C., at 4:57 p.m. from
Fragos’s home. Mr. Lopez, who was drinking beer with his roommate and his boss, did
not answer the phone call.
Ms. Cruz’s body was discovered kneeling in the front passenger seat of her car,
while L.L.C. was in the backseat. Both had died from multiple gunshot wounds inflicted
by Perfecta 9 mm Luger ammunition. A clean box of that type of ammunition later
would be recovered from a dusty shed on Fragos’s property. A 9 mm handgun was
recovered from the orchard where the car was discovered. The gun appeared to match
one Fragos was seen holding in a photograph.
Fragos was observed returning to his home around 7:00 p.m. It was after midnight
before police visited with him. By that time he had deleted all of the July 2 text messages
2 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
between his phone and Ms. Cruz’s phone. He denied having seen Cruz that day. He also
denied owning a gun.
After the discovery of the gun, police again questioned Fragos. He told them that
he once owned a gun, but had sold it to Cruz and used the proceeds to buy food for a
barbecue.2 When told that the police had recovered the murder weapon, Fragos told the
detectives that his prints would be found on the gun and that they had enough evidence to
convict him.
Two counts of aggravated first degree murder eventually were filed. Prior to trial,
the parties filed competing motions concerning “other suspects” evidence. The State
sought to exclude evidence that Lopez had motive to commit the crimes, while the
defense sought to introduce evidence that Lopez had mistreated Cruz and was angry at
her. The court excluded the evidence, finding both that the defense had no admissible
evidence and did not satisfy the foundation for admitting other suspect evidence.
The case proceeded to jury trial. Lopez was in Mexico during the trial and was
not called on to provide testimony. The defense argued the case on a theory that the
investigation had focused on Mr. Fragos early on and did not consider other possibilities,
including the circle of people in Ms. Cruz’s life. Nonetheless, the jury rejected his
2 Shopping receipts contradicted this statement; his brother later would contradict other portions of the defendant’s story.
3 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
argument and convicted him as charged. The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence
of life in prison without possibility of parole.
Mr. Fragos then timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal
without hearing oral argument.
ANALYSIS
This appeal presents a single issue. Mr. Fragos contends that the trial court erred
by excluding his other suspects evidence, thereby preventing him from presenting a
defense to the charges. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Well-settled case authority governs our review. Trial court judges have great
discretion with respect to the admission of evidence and will be overturned only for
manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-707, 903 P.2d
960 (1995). Discretion is abused where it is exercised on untenable grounds or for
untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
Under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 22 of the Washington Constitution, a defendant is entitled to present evidence in
support of his defense. State v. Strizheus, 163 Wn. App. 820, 829-830, 262 P.3d 100
(2011). That right, however, does not include a right to present irrelevant or inadmissible
evidence. State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010); State v. Hudlow, 99
Wn.2d 1, 15, 659 P.2d 514 (1983). As the proponent of the evidence, the defendant bears
4 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
the burden of establishing relevance and materiality. State v. Pacheco, 107 Wn.2d 59,
67, 726 P.2d 981 (1986).
The defense is allowed to present evidence that another person committed the
crime when it can establish “a train of facts or circumstances as tend clearly to point out
some one besides the prisoner as the guilty party.” State v. Downs, 168 Wash. 664, 667,
13 P.2d 1 (1932); State v. Rehak, 67 Wn. App. 157, 162, 834 P.2d 651 (1992). In
establishing a foundation for admission of other suspects evidence, the defendant must
show a clear nexus between the other person and the crime. State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App.
734, 800, 285 P.3d 83 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1023, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.
170 (2013). The proposed evidence must also show that the third party took a step
indicating an intention to act on the motive or opportunity. Id. However, evidence that
merely establishes a motive to commit the crime is insufficient to establish the
connection. State v. Kwan, 174 Wash. 528, 533, 25 P.2d 104 (1933); State v. Condon, 72
Wn.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED MARCH 14, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 34901-2-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) PRUDENCIO JUAN FRAGOS-RAMIREZ, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — Prudencio Juan Fragos-Ramirez (Juan Fragos)1 appeals from
convictions for two counts of aggravated first degree murder of Maria Cruz and her son,
L.L.C. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding third party perpetrator
evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
The bodies of Ms. Cruz, 18, and her three-year-old son were discovered in her
burned car about 5:54 p.m. on July 2, 2015, roughly 18-20 minutes after smoke was first
reported. The two victims had last been seen in the company of Mr. Fragos about 5:10-
5:15 p.m. that day. Fragos’s home was about one-half mile from the location where the
car and bodies were discovered.
Appellant’s counsel advised us that his client uses the name Juan Fragos, but that 1
the name in the case caption is his correct name. Br. of Appellant at 1 n.1. No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
There was conflicting evidence whether Fragos and Cruz were in a dating
relationship or not. It did appear that Cruz had been selling large quantities of cocaine
and methamphetamine for Fragos during the final few months of her brief life. In the
days leading up to her death, she had become concerned about having lost some of the
drugs she was supposed to have been selling.
The relevant events of July 2 began with Fragos texting Cruz 160 times, starting
around 3:00 a.m., despite Cruz telling him that she was going to sleep. That afternoon,
he texted her to meet him at his house in an Othello area orchard and directed her to use a
dirt road; she was not to tell anyone where she was due to security reasons. Cruz
attempted to call Fernando Lopez Aguirre, the father of L.L.C., at 4:57 p.m. from
Fragos’s home. Mr. Lopez, who was drinking beer with his roommate and his boss, did
not answer the phone call.
Ms. Cruz’s body was discovered kneeling in the front passenger seat of her car,
while L.L.C. was in the backseat. Both had died from multiple gunshot wounds inflicted
by Perfecta 9 mm Luger ammunition. A clean box of that type of ammunition later
would be recovered from a dusty shed on Fragos’s property. A 9 mm handgun was
recovered from the orchard where the car was discovered. The gun appeared to match
one Fragos was seen holding in a photograph.
Fragos was observed returning to his home around 7:00 p.m. It was after midnight
before police visited with him. By that time he had deleted all of the July 2 text messages
2 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
between his phone and Ms. Cruz’s phone. He denied having seen Cruz that day. He also
denied owning a gun.
After the discovery of the gun, police again questioned Fragos. He told them that
he once owned a gun, but had sold it to Cruz and used the proceeds to buy food for a
barbecue.2 When told that the police had recovered the murder weapon, Fragos told the
detectives that his prints would be found on the gun and that they had enough evidence to
convict him.
Two counts of aggravated first degree murder eventually were filed. Prior to trial,
the parties filed competing motions concerning “other suspects” evidence. The State
sought to exclude evidence that Lopez had motive to commit the crimes, while the
defense sought to introduce evidence that Lopez had mistreated Cruz and was angry at
her. The court excluded the evidence, finding both that the defense had no admissible
evidence and did not satisfy the foundation for admitting other suspect evidence.
The case proceeded to jury trial. Lopez was in Mexico during the trial and was
not called on to provide testimony. The defense argued the case on a theory that the
investigation had focused on Mr. Fragos early on and did not consider other possibilities,
including the circle of people in Ms. Cruz’s life. Nonetheless, the jury rejected his
2 Shopping receipts contradicted this statement; his brother later would contradict other portions of the defendant’s story.
3 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
argument and convicted him as charged. The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence
of life in prison without possibility of parole.
Mr. Fragos then timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal
without hearing oral argument.
ANALYSIS
This appeal presents a single issue. Mr. Fragos contends that the trial court erred
by excluding his other suspects evidence, thereby preventing him from presenting a
defense to the charges. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Well-settled case authority governs our review. Trial court judges have great
discretion with respect to the admission of evidence and will be overturned only for
manifest abuse of that discretion. State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-707, 903 P.2d
960 (1995). Discretion is abused where it is exercised on untenable grounds or for
untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
Under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 22 of the Washington Constitution, a defendant is entitled to present evidence in
support of his defense. State v. Strizheus, 163 Wn. App. 820, 829-830, 262 P.3d 100
(2011). That right, however, does not include a right to present irrelevant or inadmissible
evidence. State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720, 230 P.3d 576 (2010); State v. Hudlow, 99
Wn.2d 1, 15, 659 P.2d 514 (1983). As the proponent of the evidence, the defendant bears
4 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
the burden of establishing relevance and materiality. State v. Pacheco, 107 Wn.2d 59,
67, 726 P.2d 981 (1986).
The defense is allowed to present evidence that another person committed the
crime when it can establish “a train of facts or circumstances as tend clearly to point out
some one besides the prisoner as the guilty party.” State v. Downs, 168 Wash. 664, 667,
13 P.2d 1 (1932); State v. Rehak, 67 Wn. App. 157, 162, 834 P.2d 651 (1992). In
establishing a foundation for admission of other suspects evidence, the defendant must
show a clear nexus between the other person and the crime. State v. Rafay, 168 Wn. App.
734, 800, 285 P.3d 83 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1023, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct.
170 (2013). The proposed evidence must also show that the third party took a step
indicating an intention to act on the motive or opportunity. Id. However, evidence that
merely establishes a motive to commit the crime is insufficient to establish the
connection. State v. Kwan, 174 Wash. 528, 533, 25 P.2d 104 (1933); State v. Condon, 72
Wn. App. 638, 647, 865 P.2d 521 (1993).
Here, the trial court rejected the other suspects evidence because it failed to
connect Lopez to the killing, while noting that much of the proffered evidence also was
inadmissible hearsay or excludable by ER 404(b). Since the evidence failed to meet
foundational requirements, we need not discuss the other evidentiary concerns noted by
the trial judge.
5 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
Although Mr. Fragos argues his case is similar to the decision in State v. Ortuno-
Perez, 196 Wn. App. 771, 385 P.3d 218 (2016), it is not. There the other suspects were
admittedly at the scene of the shooting, were armed, and had opportunity to fire the fatal
shot. Id. at 776-777. Here, no evidence was ever presented linking Lopez to the crime
scene. Instead, the facts of this case are very similar to State v. Wade, 186 Wn. App. 749,
346 P.3d 838 (2015).
There, as here, the defendant was convicted of murder in the death of a woman
and criticized the police investigation as flawed for failure to investigate other suspects—
primarily the victim’s ex-boyfriend. Id. at 763. The former boyfriend had previously
assaulted the victim several years earlier, was subject to a no-contact order, and left
voicemail “implied threats” three months before the killing. Id. at 765. Extensive testing
did not turn up any of the former boyfriend’s DNA or fingerprints at the crime scene—
the victim’s apartment. He also did not appear on the security camera recordings for the
apartment building. Id. at 765-766.
On those facts, Division One of this court agreed with the trial court that the other
suspects evidence was not admissible, noting that the trial court “properly focused solely
on the connection of the proffered other suspect evidence to the crime.” Id. at 766. The
fact that the ex-boyfriend was a “bad actor” with a violent history and “a motive to harm
her” was not enough. Id. at 766-767. The court noted that there was “no physical
evidence connecting” the boyfriend to the murder and “no evidence” that he “was
6 No. 34901-2-III State v. Fragos-Ramirez
anywhere near" the "apartment when the crime occurred." Id. at 767. Accordingly, there
was no evidence leading to a "nonspeculative" link between the crime and the ex-
boyfriend. Id.
This case is in the same factual situation. Mr. Fragos failed to present any
evidence that put Lopez at the scene, or even in the general vicinity. The fact that Lopez
may have mistreated Ms. Cruz previously and allegedly may have had a motive to harm
her was irrelevant in light of any evidence establishing that he had the opportunity to
commit the murders during the 5:00 hour on July 2, 2015. Absent that connection, there
was no foundation for admitting the other suspects evidence.
The trial court correctly excluded the evidence due to the insufficient foundation.
There was no error. The convictions are affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR: