SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appeals court ruled Monday that prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence to pursue a second-degree murder charge against a man accused of supplying fentanyl to the parents of a 19-month-old girl who died after ingesting fentanyl and methamphetamine, finding that his conduct was too legally removed from the actions that caused the child’s death.
In its Nov. 2 decision in Ortega v. Superior Court, the Sixth District Court of Appeal concluded that evidence of the accused man’s awareness of the dangers of fentanyl did not establish that his actions legally caused the child’s death or that he intentionally assisted the conduct that resulted in her fatal exposure.
The court directed the Santa Clara County Superior Court to set aside the murder charge while allowing prosecution to continue on the remaining counts of felony child endangerment and possession of fentanyl for sale.
The case stems from the Aug. 12, 2023, death of 19-month-old Winter Rayo, who lived with her parents, Derek Rayo and Kelly Richardson, and two other adults in a home where fentanyl and methamphetamine were regularly used.
According to the appellate opinion, the accused supplied much of the fentanyl used by the adults in the household, although the parents sometimes obtained drugs from other sources.
Drug paraphernalia was present throughout the home, and evidence showed that the accused sometimes left small quantities of drugs in locations accessible to adults.
Larger quantities were stored in a locked, concealed container.
The court also reviewed evidence that the accused had used drugs in the child’s presence and was aware of the dangers associated with fentanyl.
On the night before Winter’s death, her parents brought her into the accused man’s bedroom because she was fussy and asked him to help calm her.
Shortly after 3 a.m. on Aug. 12, the accused and his girlfriend checked into a nearby hotel in connection with a planned drug sale.
They returned to the home around 2:45 p.m. before leaving again. According to the opinion, the girlfriend later said Winter was already dead when they returned.
Winter’s parents did not call 911 until 11:09 p.m.
When paramedics arrived, they found the child on her parents’ bed, wrapped in a pink shag rug. Based on the condition of her body, paramedics believed she had been dead for approximately 12 hours.
The coroner estimated that Winter died sometime between 5:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
An autopsy determined that her death resulted from the combined toxicity of fentanyl, a fentanyl metabolite and methamphetamine.
According to the opinion, either fentanyl or methamphetamine would have been sufficient to cause her death independently.
Investigators found fentanyl and drug paraphernalia in the parents’ bedroom, including substances and objects near the bed where Winter was discovered.
The evidence did not establish precisely how Winter ingested the drugs.
Prosecutors argued that the accused should be held responsible for her death because he supplied fentanyl to her parents despite knowing they used drugs recklessly around their daughter.
The prosecution maintained that the child’s exposure was foreseeable given the accused man’s knowledge of the household conditions and the dangers of fentanyl.
A magistrate initially found sufficient evidence to hold him to answer on the murder charge, reasoning that he had supplied fentanyl that likely contributed to Winter’s death and had failed to protect her.
The accused subsequently challenged the murder charge, arguing that prosecutors had not established the necessary causal connection between his conduct and the child’s death.
He also argued that he was not legally responsible for the parents’ actions in storing or using drugs around their daughter.
The trial court denied his motion to dismiss the murder charge, prompting appellate review.
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Adrienne M. Grover concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the murder charge under either of the prosecution’s theories.
The court acknowledged substantial evidence that the accused understood the dangers associated with fentanyl and the risks to Winter.
However, it distinguished that awareness from the legal requirement that the accused’s conduct must have proximately caused the death.
Under California law, implied malice murder requires proof that a person deliberately committed an act dangerous to human life, knew of the danger and consciously disregarded it.
The conduct must also be a substantial factor in causing the death.
The appellate court explained that conduct creating a dangerous situation is not necessarily the same as conduct that legally causes a death.
Even assuming the accused supplied the fentanyl Winter ingested, the court found that her death depended on additional conduct by the adults responsible for her safety.
The court emphasized that the magistrate had expressly found no evidence that the accused personally left drugs within Winter’s reach.
The evidence also indicated that the parents obtained drugs from other sources, including methamphetamine that could independently have caused the child’s death.
The court therefore concluded that supplying fentanyl to the parents did not establish the necessary proximate cause for implied malice murder.
The panel separately considered whether the accused could be prosecuted as an aider and abettor.
Under that theory, prosecutors were required to show that he knew the direct perpetrators intended to commit the life-endangering act and that he intended to assist in its commission.
The court found no evidence that supplying fentanyl demonstrated an intention to help the parents use or store the drugs in a way that made them accessible to Winter.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the accused’s failure to protect the child independently supported murder liability, finding no showing that he had a legal duty to act at the time of her death.
In reaching its decision, the panel relied on California Supreme Court precedent requiring courts to identify the specific life-endangering act that caused a death rather than treating a broader course of dangerous conduct as sufficient.
The court cited People v. Reyes, a 2023 decision addressing the requirements for implied malice murder and aiding-and-abetting liability.
It also discussed People v. Collins, a 2025 decision concerning the limits of murder liability based on a failure to protect a child from another person’s fatal conduct.
The appellate panel concluded that the accused’s knowledge of the parents’ reckless drug use did not establish that he knew the fatal quantities of drugs would be left within Winter’s reach or that he intended to assist that conduct.
The opinion also noted that Winter’s parents had been convicted by a jury of second-degree murder while the appellate proceedings were pending.
The court distinguished their responsibility for the child’s safety from the accused man’s role as a drug supplier and housemate.
The panel rejected the prosecution’s effort to extend implied malice murder liability beyond the requirements established by the California Supreme Court.
The decision does not prevent prosecution for other alleged criminal conduct involving drugs or child endangerment.
In its disposition, the Sixth District directed the trial court to vacate its May 2, 2025, order denying the motion to set aside the murder charge and enter a new order granting that motion only as to murder.
The remaining charges of felony child endangerment and possession of fentanyl for sale may proceed.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
