Mia Gonzales
Homicide- Gender
- female
- Country
- USA
- Location
- San Bernardino County, California, USA
- Date of birth
- 1975
- Age at first offence
- 32
- Characteristics
- rape?, argument, domestic violence, abuse
- Victim profile
- Abel Gonzales, 44 (her husband)
- Method of murder
- Shooting
- Date(s) of murder
- October 27, 2007
- Years active
- 2007
- Date of arrest
- Same day
- Status
-
Pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 8 years in prison on October 28, 2011, after a jury acquitted her of murder on May 11, 2011 but deadlocked on voluntary manslaughter
Other details
Mia Gonzales, age 36, was charged in connection with the Oct. 27, 2007 shooting death of her husband, Abel Gonzales, a 44-year-old state parole agent.
Mia Gonzales testified during the trial that her husband beat her severely during a midnight argument in the couple’s bedroom in the 1900 block of South Almond Street.
Mia Gonzales entered a no contest plea to voluntary manslaughter as part of a plea agreement with prosecutors. Her attorney said the plea agreement carried an eight-year prison sentence, and that because she had been in custody since the shooting, her sentence would be significantly shortened. Her attorney estimated she would be released from prison in about 2-1/2 years.
Mark Fredrick represented Mia Gonzales and spoke about her reasons for pleading no contest rather than standing trial a second time. He also said jurors told him after the hearing that they believed her testimony that her husband’s shooting was accidental, but that they questioned her decision to retrieve a revolver and that they felt there were other options available to her besides getting the gun.
Background
Abel Gonzales was killed in a shooting described as occurring during a violent late-night struggle amid an argument about the future of the couple’s troubled marriage.
Mia Gonzales testified that Abel Gonzales became more violent than ever during an argument over whether to divorce. She said her suggestion of divorce came after several months of physical abuse from her husband.
During the trial, a prosecutor argued that Mia Gonzales lied about the circumstances of the shooting and fabricated allegations that she was abused by Abel Gonzales. Deputy District Attorney Mary Izadi portrayed Mia Gonzales as the aggressor and said Mia Gonzales was upset over her husband’s infidelity. Izadi did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The offence
Mia Gonzales testified that she and Abel Gonzales argued in their bedroom and that Abel Gonzales restrained her. She retrieved a revolver during the argument from a cabinet in the bedroom.
Mia Gonzales testified that she never intended to hurt her husband. She said the couple struggled over the weapon and it inadvertently fired. The bullet entered Abel Gonzales’ brain and he died instantly or within seconds.
Trial
The trial occurred in San Bernardino Superior Court.
A prosecutor argued during the trial that Mia Gonzales lied about the circumstances of the shooting and fabricated allegations that she was abused by Abel Gonzales.
Fredrick estimated that jurors deliberated for nine days. The jury was made up of nine women and three men.
The jury acquitted Mia Gonzales of murder charges and deadlocked on a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. The jury deliberations were split 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict for voluntary manslaughter, according to Frederick.
After the jury announced it was deadlocked, a judge declared a mistrial in the case.
A juror identified as Lisa, a 55-year-old teacher’s assistant from Rialto who asked that her last name be withheld, said:
"We could have deliberated for the next two weeks and it wouldn't have changed a thing."
Lisa said the panel of nine women and three men spent its last three days of deliberations trying to coax the lone holdout into convicting Mia Gonzales. Lisa called the lone holdout on the jury "unreasonable" in her position and said:
"I don't feel justice was served in this case,"
"I just don't. And that's a sad thing."
Lisa said she and many of the other jurors believed Mia Gonzales lied about the circumstances of the shooting. She said several jurors believed Abel Gonzales’ killing might have been a murder, but the panel felt it lacked sufficient evidence to convict Mia Gonzales of the charge.
Fredrick said Mia Gonzales was relieved that she was acquitted of murder and cried when the verdicts were returned.
Sentencing
On October 28, 2011, Mia Gonzales was sentenced to 8 years in prison after pleading no contest to voluntary manslaughter as part of a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Appeals
Prosecutors had the option of retrying Mia Gonzales for voluntary manslaughter after the jury deadlocked, and a decision had not been made whether to retry the case or offer Mia Gonzales a plea agreement.
Deputy District Attorney Mary Izadi said:
"There's a lot more discussions that need to happen before we can make that decision,"
Izadi said the case was next due in court May 25 for a hearing in which a judge would consider lowering Mia Gonzales’ bail, which was currently set at $2 million. Izadi said the “bail schedule,” which was a list of recommended bail amounts, called for a bail of $350,000 for voluntary manslaughter with a firearm.
Outcome
A jury found Mia Gonzales not guilty of murdering her husband.
The jury deadlocked on voluntary manslaughter. The jury’s deliberations lasted nine days, and after the jury announced it was deadlocked, a judge declared a mistrial.
Aftermath
Abel Gonzales’ sister, Sandy Silva, said the outcome of the case was "an injustice for my brother," and she said she believed Mia Gonzales should have been convicted of murder.
Sandy Silva said:
"It's really sad for us,"
"My mother didn't even go because she was so sick over the whole thing. Her heart was hurting her so much, she just couldn't go."
Sandy Silva said:
"What an outcome for such a good guy,"
"He was a good man. He was a good husband, and he was a awesome father."
Sandy Silva said she believes Mia Gonzales planned for more than a year before killing her husband. She said she believes the shooting was a cold-blooded murder motivated by financial gain and that:
"The evidence was clear,"
"The D.A. did a good job. She did an excellent job in presenting the case. It just breaks our hearts that we had to wait 3 1/2 years and 3 1/2 weeks to hear a verdict like this."
Spotted an error, or have more information about this case?