On May 24, 1992, Ramon Flores was working at a gas station that was getting robbed and was shot and killed. The man charged with his murder was Michael R. Pulido. He was charged with first degree murder along the felony murder law. That law states that killing during the act of a felony, in this case a robbery, is automatically first degree murder. The way I have interpreted the facts of this case, the defendant was the one who pulled the trigger and point toward him as the killer.
To come to this decision, the jury had to conclude that the defendant had intent to commit a felony, killed during the act of a dangerous felony, and that the victims death was a foreseeable outcome of the felony. Ramon Flores was working the night shift, as cashier, at the shell gas station on May 24, 1992, in San Mateo, CA. Between the time of 1 a. m. and 5:30 am. Michael Pulido entered the gas station where Ramon worked and bought a can of coke, then shot him in the face with a 45 caliber colt handgun, killing him instantly.
He then took the cash register. A witness told police detectives that around 3:45 a. m. , he heard a loud bang, and yelling coming from the gas station. The witness could not make out what the yelling was about. The stolen cash register was found in bushes, along a roadside the next morning in San Mateo. Michael Pulido’s finger prints were found a can of coke on the counter of the crime scene. His finger prints were also on the stolen cash register. No other finger prints were found.
Michael Pulido was staying at the house of his uncle Michael Aragon, Aragon’s girlfriend Laura Moore, and there two kids in there home in San Mateo, Ca. Pulido was seen by his uncle, his uncles two children, and a neighbor, with a pistol during his stay there. The pistol was identified as a 45 caliber colt. Testimony from Aragon and Laura Moore also could give question as to the defendants whereabouts during the crime. They stated that Pulido was home around 12 a. m. n May 23, but was gone when they woke up to care for their child around 3 a. m. Aragon also stated that after reading a newspaper article about the robbery murder, he confronted Pulido asking if he had committed the crime. At first the defendant denied that he had committed the crime but then admitted to it and gave full details to the crime. The jury found Michael Pulido was guilty of robbery and first degree murder in accordance to the felony murder rule. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
One point that the jury made to find Pulido of felony murder was, that he had intent to commit a felony. To come to this decision I believe the court relied in the testimony given by the defendants uncle. In court Aragon testified that on two occasions Pulido observed that the Shell gas station would be easy to rob, because the cashier was always sleeping. The defendant intentions were to rob the gas station. The other point the court had to prove was that the defendant killed during the commission of a dangerous felony.
In this case it was obvious that armed robbery is a dangerous felony. However, the fact that Pulido killed the victim before the money was taken could give the defense the argument that, maybe Pulido had beef with his victim. The killing could have been due to some long standing grudge or other issue. The only problem is the testimony of Pulidos Uncle that showed the defendants intent to rob the gas station first. The court could then come to the conclusion that the killing occurred during the armed robbery of the gas station.
Another point the jury had to make was that killing Ramon Flores in the commission of the robbery was a foreseeable outcome. There is no question that again, armed robbery is a dangerous crime. I don’t consider myself an expert, but the probability of something going wrong during a robbery is high. The reasoning behind the courts decision is simply this. Although there are no accounts to this happing, the victim could have resisted. He could have put up a fight to force the defendant to shot him to continue with the intended robbery.
I believe that the courts decision to find Michael Pulido guilty of felony murder was correct, and in accordance to the rules of charging someone with felony murder. I believe this based on the evidence that was given in the court file. Finger prints and testimony provided put the defendant at the scene of the crime. His intentions were to rob the Shell gas station, killing Mr. Flores was done to continue with the robbery, and Mr Flores’s death was a foreseeable outcome in the armed robbery.
Works Cited
People v. Pulido. 15 Cal. 4th 713. Supreme Court of California. 1997. Google Scholar. Web.
