First-degree murder conviction for 2019 torture, poisoning upheld

(CN) — A man who tortured a 23-year-old man before zipping his body in a suitcase and throwing him into the San Francisco Bay saw his murder conviction upheld Friday by a California appeals court.

A jury convicted Gerald Rowe, 54, of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, with torture-murder and poison-murder special circumstances, for his role in the death of 23-year-old George Randall-Saldivar.

On Feb. 3, 2019, Randall-Saldivar showed up to Rowe’s hotel room, where he used drugs and engaged in sexual acts with Rowe and Rowe’s acquaintance, Angel Anderson, 43. In the early morning of Feb. 4, the pair tied Randall-Saldivar’s hands behind his back and placed him in a noose attached to the ceiling, restraining him for several hours. Later, a bag was placed over his head.

At one point, Rowe left the hotel room and returned with narcotics, injecting a substance into Randall-Saldivar’s arm with a syringe, after which he had a seizure. The duo then zipped his body into a suitcase, leaving it in the hotel room for nearly a day while they went about their daily activities, before dumping it into the San Francisco Bay on Feb. 5.

His body was found floating in the bay two weeks later.

Rowe was sentenced to life without parole on the murder charge and 25 years to life for conspiracy to commit murder. Anderson separately pleaded guilty and was convicted of first-degree murder by way of torture and poisoning. She is currently serving a term of 25 years to life.

On appeal, Rowe challenged the court’s jury instruction on the definition of poison that stated fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine all constitute “poison,” arguing the instruction violated his constitutional rights. The attorney general later acknowledged the language was incorrect but argued the error was harmless.

The three-judge First Appellate District panel agreed, concluding the incorrect language did not affect the murder conviction.

“Here, by returning the murder conviction the jury necessarily ‘agree[d] that the People … proved that [Rowe] 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, Rowe’s challenge to his murder conviction fails,” Justice Jim Humes wrote for the court in an unsigned opinion.

The panel similarly ruled the challenged language did not affect the poison-murder special circumstance, finding a reasonable juror would have still found the special circumstance without the instruction.

“The language defining each of the three substances as ‘poison’ did not remove a contested issue from the jury’s consideration, as it conveyed that each substance was inherently capable of killing but not that each was administered to Randall-Saldivar at a dose that did in fact cause his death,” Humes wrote.

The panel additionally found harmless the court’s choice not to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser including offense of murder since they were properly instructed on and rejected the lesser included offense of second-degree murder.

“We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rowe would not have obtained a more favorable result had an instruction on involuntary manslaughter been given, and there is no reasonable probability that the instruction’s omission affected the verdict,” Humes wrote.

However, the panel agreed Rowe’s conspiracy conviction and sentence should be stayed because a defendant can’t be punished for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Justices Monique Langhorne Wilson and Charles A. Smiley concurred.

Representatives for both parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @mhattridge_