GUILTY CA - Lisa Naegle, 36, Torrance, 18 Dec 2016 *Arrest*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

PrairieWind said:
I saw a release from the DA saying he was being charged with one count of murder, though it didn't say what degree. It went on to say that they would not seek death penalty since it appeared to be a "crime of passion."
Click to expand...

Yep that's what I thought it was...crime of passion...no surprise there.
 
Whiteorchids said:
How in the hell does he get bond when he's admitted to killing her smashing her head in with a hammer and burying her. Whats that stupid attorney doing patting his shoulder. Hoping to change his admission to being coerced under duress. Stupid CA justice system. People do less worse then this evil monster and get NO bail. Sicko
Click to expand...

Because he's going to be charged with manslaughter is my guess....

It's a crime of passion.....he will face about 11 year max.
 
jdj125 said:
Because he's going to be charged with manslaughter is my guess....

It's a crime of passion.....he will face about 11 year max.
Click to expand...

I doubt manslaughter probably second unless they can find evidence it was planned. PD will probably use an insanity defense get some psychological testing before arraignment. If this goes to trial it will be continued for years unless he takes a plea deal.
 
Why is TMZ the first to report on anything with this? I understand the reality show but it seems they report "exclusive" details first, then MSM follows in their update. TMZ and the disgusting comments users post annoys the heck out of me.

Also, I get the denial about the affair. But from whats been put out there so far, I think there's truth to it.. LM's family and friends are obviously very proactive and probably protective of her. Their not saying anything against it, coupled with some probable cover ups/lies, to me, confirms affair. I don't think it discounts her life or makes her death any less tragic. It does multiply the grief, absolutely, for the husband if it's true.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
misslu said:
Why is TMZ the first to report on anything with this? I understand the reality show but it seems they report "exclusive" details first, then MSM follows in their update. TMZ and the disgusting comments users post annoys the heck out of me.

Also, I get the denial about the affair. But from whats been put out there so far, I think there's truth to it.. LM's family and friends are obviously very proactive and probably protective of her. Their not saying anything against it, coupled with some probable cover ups/lies, to me, confirms affair. I don't think it discounts her life or makes her death any less tragic. It does multiply the grief, absolutely, for the husband if it's true.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think they have a direct line to the husband, probably dating back to the reality show days....
 
jdj125 said:
Because he's going to be charged with manslaughter is my guess....

It's a crime of passion.....he will face about 11 year max.
Click to expand...

I think it is first degree or no lower than second degree. I just read an article that he can get 25 years to life in prison so it isn't manslaughter not even voluntary manslaughter charge.
 
This will be at least second degree murder if not first. There was clearly malice and intent.
As for TMZ, they usually get info from an insider. They immediately reported the affair angle and have not waivered. So my guess is they have info from a family member or one of Lisa's close friends.
 
It has to be a first degree murder charge imo. I will find the article I just read that said if convicted he could be sentenced to 25 years to life. I also read a CA defense attorney's site and he said those who are given 25 years to life are rarely, if ever, paroled in a first degree murder case.

First vs. Second Degree Murder

California recognizes two types of murder: first degree murder and second degree murder. First degree murder is reserved for especially heinous crimes involving premeditation, deliberation or deliberate planning, and intent to kill. State laws list the special circumstances that a prosecutor must use to charge a defendant with first degree murder. If none of the special circumstances apply, the prosecutor may pursue a charge of second degree murder.

In California, a conviction for first degree murder can result in one of three sentences:
◾Imprisonment in state prison for a term of 25 years to life;
◾Life imprisonment in state prison without the possibility of parole; or
◾Death (though it should be noted that capital punishment is currently suspended.)

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-first-degree-murder-laws.html

Imo, he is going to be charged with first degree since its been stated in articles the DA added an enhancement charge (special circumstances) for using the weapon he used.
 
I agree it will be first degree. They mentioned something about not seeking a death penalty and the only way that would be an issue is for first degree.
 
Here is the special circumstance they are going to use in this case, imo. I.e...bludgeoning weapon-hammer-multiple blows inflicted with this type of weapon which causes great suffering and pain. To me the repeated and multiple blows inflicted shows his full intention was to murder Lisa. Multiple blows can also support the first degree charge since he had time to reflect after every blow he did with the hammer. That meets the threshold of 1st with special circumstances. Any reasonable person would know these type of horrific blows to a human's head/skull would either kill the victim or leave them with life threatening injuries. He planned to not stop until he knew she was dead and he accomplished his goal. IMO

Murder involving torture

Murder that involves the infliction of torture -- extreme pain and suffering -- is also special circumstances murder punishable by death or life without parole.73

Here are the factors that need to be proven for this special circumstance to apply:
1.The defendants need to have intended to kill the victim (accidental or negligent killing won't count);
2.The defendant needs to have intended to inflict extreme physical pain on the victim while that person was still alive, for any reason (revenge, extortion, etc.); AND
3.The defendant needs to have performed an act that would inflict extreme physical pain on the victim.74

http://www.shouselaw.com/special-circumstances-murder-california.html#2.12
 
California's Voluntary Manslaughter Law
Penal Code 192(a) PC



You come home from work, only to find your wife in bed with another man. In a sudden burst of rage, you kill them both. Despite the fact that this sounds like murder, it's probably not. Under California law, it's more likely to constitute voluntary manslaughter.

California's voluntary manslaughter laws apply to killings that you commit

during a sudden quarrel, or
in the heat of passion.1
Prosecutors rarely file Penal Code 192 (a) voluntary manslaughter as a separate charge. The offense usually comes up in murder cases, where the accused admits to killing the victim, but seeks have the charge reduced from murder to manslaughter.

If the charge is reduced to manslaughter, the defendant faces a maximum of 11 years in prison. With murder, by contrast, he faces a potential life sentence...or sometimes even execution.

Below, our California criminal defense attorneys2 address the following:

1. The Legal Definition of Voluntary Manslaughter in California

2. Examples

3. Legal Defenses

3.1. Self-defense / defense of others

3.2. The insanity defense

3.3. Accident

3.4. Plea bargain from murder

4. Penalties, Punishment and Sentencing

5. Related Offenses

5.1. Murder

5.2. Attempted murder

5.3. Involuntary manslaughter

5.4. Vehicular manslaughter

5.5. DUI manslaughter / Watson murder

If, after reading this article, you would like more information, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.

1. The Legal Definition of Voluntary Manslaughter in California

When you

intentionally kill another person (without a legal excuse for doing so), or
act with a conscious disregard for human life,
you either violate California's murder law or California's voluntary manslaughter law. The difference between the two is whether you acted with "malice aforethought".

Malice aforethought exists when you act with (a) an intent to kill or (b) a wanton disregard for human life. When you kill another person (or fetus).and act with malice aforethought.you are guilty of murder. However, when you kill someone during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, California law presumes you acted without malice.which is why we have the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter.3

Sudden quarrel or heat of passion

To kill another person during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion means

you were provoked,
as a result of being provoked, you acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured your reasoning or judgment, and
the provocation would have caused an average person to act rashly and without due deliberation.that is, from passion rather than from judgment.4
For Penal Code 192(a) purposes, "heat of passion" means any violent or intense emotion that causes a person to act impulsively. If.between the time you are provoked and the time you kill.you have had enough time to "cool off" and regain your ability to think rationally, then you would more likely be guilty of premeditated murder than manslaughter.5

And.with respect to provocation.California courts haven't established a set criteria for what constitutes "sufficient" provocation. They have, however, ruled that it can't be slight or remote.

The provocation must be so influential that it would cause an average person in the same situation to react emotionally rather than logically. This is an objective standard. How you personally reacted is only justifiable if it is how a fictional average person would have reacted.6

Example: Defendant picked up a young woman who was hitchhiking. They went back to her house and had sex before he stabbed her eight or nine times and manually strangled her to death. He claimed that he killed her because
he was drunk, and
upon hearing a helicopter fly overhead, he suffered Vietnam war flashbacks that caused him to "snap".
But as the California Supreme Court stated, "Defendant's evidence that he was intoxicated, that he suffered various mental deficiencies, that he had a psychological dysfunction due to traumatic experiences in the Vietnam War, and that he just "snapped" when he heard the helicopter, may have satisfied the subjective element of heat of passion.

But it does not satisfy the objective, reasonable person requirement, which requires provocation by the victim. To satisfy the objective or 'reasonable person' element of this form of voluntary manslaughter, the accused's heat of passion must be due to sufficient provocation.[E]vidence of defendant's extraordinary character and environmental deficiencies was manifestly irrelevant to the inquiry."7
2. Examples

The following are examples of some cases where courts held sufficient provocation existed to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter under Penal Code 192 (a).

Being Accosted by an Angry Mob

In People v. Breverman, the court held that the defendant was entitled to a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction when a "mob" of young men.armed with dangerous weapons and harboring a specific hostile intent.trespassed upon his property, acting in a menacing manner. The group's conduct included challenging the defendant to fight and using the weapons to batter and smash the defendant's car which was parked in the defendant's driveway, only a short distance from his front door.

The court held that this scenario was enough to cause fear and panic and that defendant.and more importantly, an ordinary reasonable person...could have been aroused to passion which would have obscured his reasoning when he tried to scare the group away by firing random shots through his door and towards the men.8

Confronting Your Brother's Murder Suspect

In People v. Brooks, the defendant was at the crime scene where his brother had just been stabbed to death. People at the scene told the defendant who the alleged murderer was, and this person was also present at the scene. The defendant attacked the alleged suspect, but police broke up the fight. Defendant then left and returned two hours later with his gun when he shot and killed the alleged suspect.

The court held that "the disclosure of information that the victim murdered a family member of the defendant is legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter." It further reasoned that even though two hours had passed between the time the defendant learned the information and shot the victim, the defendant still acted in the "heat of passion" based on the testimony of two police witnesses who stated that the defendant was "very upset" and "extremely upset" when he was questioning all the bystanders at the scene of his brother's murder.9

Being Tormented by One's Lover

In People v. Borchers, the defendant was prompted to kill his lover based on a series of events that included admitting to infidelity, trying to jump out of his moving car, taking a gun and threatening to kill herself, pleading with the defendant to kill her, and taunting him by asking if he was too "chicken" to pull the gun's trigger.

As the court opined, "It may fairly be concluded that the evidence on the issue of not guilty supports a finding that defendant killed in wild desperation induced by Dotty's long continued provocatory conduct."10

In contrast, the following are examples of cases where courts held that there was not sufficient provocation to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

People v. Lucas (name calling, smirking, "dirty looks" and general taunting are not sufficient to reduce a murder charge to that of California voluntary manslaughter)11
People v. Kanawyer (although provocation can arise from a series of events over time, that doesn't include the 14-15 year period during which the defendant was subject to criticism and ridicule by his grandparents whom he later killed when he broke into their home and shot them at close range with a sawed-off shotgun)12
People v. Fenenbock (evidence that the defendant and a group of others took the victim into the woods and killed him in retaliation for allegedly molesting one of the codefendant's daughters two days after the alleged molestation was sufficient to support a deliberated and premeditated murder)13
People v. Rich (when you are in the act of committing a crime against another person.and that person predictably resists the crime.that resistance does not constitute the kind of sufficient provocation necessary to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter should you ultimately end up killing the victim).14
 
jdj125 said:
California's Voluntary Manslaughter Law
Penal Code 192(a) PC



You come home from work, only to find your wife in bed with another man. In a sudden burst of rage, you kill them both. Despite the fact that this sounds like murder, it's probably not. Under California law, it's more likely to constitute voluntary manslaughter.

California's voluntary manslaughter laws apply to killings that you commit

during a sudden quarrel, or
in the heat of passion.1
Prosecutors rarely file Penal Code 192 (a) voluntary manslaughter as a separate charge. The offense usually comes up in murder cases, where the accused admits to killing the victim, but seeks have the charge reduced from murder to manslaughter.

If the charge is reduced to manslaughter, the defendant faces a maximum of 11 years in prison. With murder, by contrast, he faces a potential life sentence...or sometimes even execution.

Below, our California criminal defense attorneys2 address the following:

1. The Legal Definition of Voluntary Manslaughter in California

2. Examples

3. Legal Defenses

3.1. Self-defense / defense of others

3.2. The insanity defense

3.3. Accident

3.4. Plea bargain from murder

4. Penalties, Punishment and Sentencing

5. Related Offenses

5.1. Murder

5.2. Attempted murder

5.3. Involuntary manslaughter

5.4. Vehicular manslaughter

5.5. DUI manslaughter / Watson murder

If, after reading this article, you would like more information, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.

1. The Legal Definition of Voluntary Manslaughter in California

When you

intentionally kill another person (without a legal excuse for doing so), or
act with a conscious disregard for human life,
you either violate California's murder law or California's voluntary manslaughter law. The difference between the two is whether you acted with "malice aforethought".

Malice aforethought exists when you act with (a) an intent to kill or (b) a wanton disregard for human life. When you kill another person (or fetus).and act with malice aforethought.you are guilty of murder. However, when you kill someone during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, California law presumes you acted without malice.which is why we have the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter.3

Sudden quarrel or heat of passion

To kill another person during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion means

you were provoked,
as a result of being provoked, you acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured your reasoning or judgment, and
the provocation would have caused an average person to act rashly and without due deliberation.that is, from passion rather than from judgment.4
For Penal Code 192(a) purposes, "heat of passion" means any violent or intense emotion that causes a person to act impulsively. If.between the time you are provoked and the time you kill.you have had enough time to "cool off" and regain your ability to think rationally, then you would more likely be guilty of premeditated murder than manslaughter.5

And.with respect to provocation.California courts haven't established a set criteria for what constitutes "sufficient" provocation. They have, however, ruled that it can't be slight or remote.

The provocation must be so influential that it would cause an average person in the same situation to react emotionally rather than logically. This is an objective standard. How you personally reacted is only justifiable if it is how a fictional average person would have reacted.6

Example: Defendant picked up a young woman who was hitchhiking. They went back to her house and had sex before he stabbed her eight or nine times and manually strangled her to death. He claimed that he killed her because
he was drunk, and
upon hearing a helicopter fly overhead, he suffered Vietnam war flashbacks that caused him to "snap".
But as the California Supreme Court stated, "Defendant's evidence that he was intoxicated, that he suffered various mental deficiencies, that he had a psychological dysfunction due to traumatic experiences in the Vietnam War, and that he just "snapped" when he heard the helicopter, may have satisfied the subjective element of heat of passion.

But it does not satisfy the objective, reasonable person requirement, which requires provocation by the victim. To satisfy the objective or 'reasonable person' element of this form of voluntary manslaughter, the accused's heat of passion must be due to sufficient provocation.[E]vidence of defendant's extraordinary character and environmental deficiencies was manifestly irrelevant to the inquiry."7
2. Examples

The following are examples of some cases where courts held sufficient provocation existed to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter under Penal Code 192 (a).

Being Accosted by an Angry Mob

In People v. Breverman, the court held that the defendant was entitled to a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction when a "mob" of young men.armed with dangerous weapons and harboring a specific hostile intent.trespassed upon his property, acting in a menacing manner. The group's conduct included challenging the defendant to fight and using the weapons to batter and smash the defendant's car which was parked in the defendant's driveway, only a short distance from his front door.

The court held that this scenario was enough to cause fear and panic and that defendant.and more importantly, an ordinary reasonable person...could have been aroused to passion which would have obscured his reasoning when he tried to scare the group away by firing random shots through his door and towards the men.8

Confronting Your Brother's Murder Suspect

In People v. Brooks, the defendant was at the crime scene where his brother had just been stabbed to death. People at the scene told the defendant who the alleged murderer was, and this person was also present at the scene. The defendant attacked the alleged suspect, but police broke up the fight. Defendant then left and returned two hours later with his gun when he shot and killed the alleged suspect.

The court held that "the disclosure of information that the victim murdered a family member of the defendant is legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter." It further reasoned that even though two hours had passed between the time the defendant learned the information and shot the victim, the defendant still acted in the "heat of passion" based on the testimony of two police witnesses who stated that the defendant was "very upset" and "extremely upset" when he was questioning all the bystanders at the scene of his brother's murder.9

Being Tormented by One's Lover

In People v. Borchers, the defendant was prompted to kill his lover based on a series of events that included admitting to infidelity, trying to jump out of his moving car, taking a gun and threatening to kill herself, pleading with the defendant to kill her, and taunting him by asking if he was too "chicken" to pull the gun's trigger.

As the court opined, "It may fairly be concluded that the evidence on the issue of not guilty supports a finding that defendant killed in wild desperation induced by Dotty's long continued provocatory conduct."10

In contrast, the following are examples of cases where courts held that there was not sufficient provocation to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

People v. Lucas (name calling, smirking, "dirty looks" and general taunting are not sufficient to reduce a murder charge to that of California voluntary manslaughter)11
People v. Kanawyer (although provocation can arise from a series of events over time, that doesn't include the 14-15 year period during which the defendant was subject to criticism and ridicule by his grandparents whom he later killed when he broke into their home and shot them at close range with a sawed-off shotgun)12
People v. Fenenbock (evidence that the defendant and a group of others took the victim into the woods and killed him in retaliation for allegedly molesting one of the codefendant's daughters two days after the alleged molestation was sufficient to support a deliberated and premeditated murder)13
People v. Rich (when you are in the act of committing a crime against another person.and that person predictably resists the crime.that resistance does not constitute the kind of sufficient provocation necessary to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter should you ultimately end up killing the victim).14
Click to expand...

They've charged him today with murder. Manslaughter is not murder.
 
EXCLUSIVE: Pictured, the shallow grave beside a kennel where 'mean loner buried Bridalplasty star after bludgeoning her to death with a hammer'

He lived there ALONE for some time.

He was brought up in the $629,000 four-bedroom home, although his parents Jackie Jerome Sr, 65, and Hilda, 62, have since moved out.
His sister Verena, 36, also spent time at the home but has also now left, with neighbors telling DailyMail.com that Rogers had been living there alone 'for some time'.
'He's very quiet, he's very alone and he don't seem to have many friends,' said Maria Delgado, 49, who has known the suspected killer for 20 years.
'He has been alone there for some time. I never saw her [Naegle] there. He comes out for work, he comes home – sometimes he will say hi, sometimes bye but that's it.'
Another, who asked not to be named, described Rogers as 'mean' and said he insisted on putting up wooden screens around his property to avoid having to talk to neighbors.
'He was mean, so we didn't really talk to him,' said the neighbor. 'He even boarded up the fence so he didn't have to talk to anyone.'
Asked about the police operation, he said: 'They got here about 10am [Tuesday] morning and left around midday [Wednesday] today.
'The street was totally closed down – you could go out but you couldn't come back in. They [the LAPD] were searching the garden all night. It must have been at least 12 hours.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...idalplasty-star-bludgeoning-death-hammer.html

7a5f69449a9d0df701992bb99fc08d02.jpg
7bc274cecfcac95a848adcf7ae1763a4.jpg
360db0ddd4eb15d9a2535bc938606e1e.jpg
 
Since her blood-soaked clothing was found separately, sounds like he murdered her fully clothed. Even creepier because he buried her nude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 71 more.
Total: 1,793 (members: 72, guests: 1,721)

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
1,721
Total visitors
1,793
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,258
Messages
18,184,818
Members
233,285
Latest member
Slowcrow
Back
Top