The Scream murder case refers to the January 1998 killing of 37-year-old Gina Castillo in Lynwood, California, by her 16-year-old son Mario Salvador Padilla and his 15-year-old cousin Samuel Jeremias Ramirez, who told investigators the horror films Scream and Scream 2 had inspired the crime. Both were tried as adults and convicted of first-degree murder in 1999. Padilla’s sentence has been reopened repeatedly as juvenile sentencing law changed, and in 2022 the California Supreme Court ordered his case sent to juvenile court for a transfer hearing.
What Happened on January 13, 1998
Padilla lived in a two-bedroom Lynwood apartment with his mother Gina, his stepfather Pedro Castillo, and a baby sister. On the morning of January 13, 1998, he pretended to leave for school, met Ramirez at an arcade, and returned to the apartment with their faces covered. Ramirez held Gina Castillo down while Padilla stabbed her 45 times using four knives and a screwdriver.1CBS News. 2 Guilty of Scream Murder During the attack, Castillo called 911 and phoned her husband. On the 911 recording she said, “My son, he’s 16, he just stabbed me. I’m bleeding.” She died from her injuries.2Los Angeles Times. Movie-Obsessed Teens Convicted of Murder
The pair also robbed the home, taking money that had been set aside for Padilla’s baby sister. Pedro Castillo, an electrician who had raised Padilla for ten years, was not home, though investigators later determined the teens had expected him to be there. Both were also convicted of conspiring to murder Pedro.3Los Angeles Times. Teen Who Tied Killing to Movie Gets Life
Why They Pointed to Scream
In audio-taped confessions, Padilla and Ramirez told investigators they were obsessed with Scream and Scream 2 and that the films had driven them to plan the killing. They said they needed money from the robbery to buy “grim reaper” costumes and electronic voice-changing devices like those used by the killer in the movies.1CBS News. 2 Guilty of Scream Murder Padilla told a probation officer that exposure to horror films and television caused him to “fantasize how to do things I could not do.”3Los Angeles Times. Teen Who Tied Killing to Movie Gets Life
Preliminary hearing transcripts revealed the teens’ plans extended beyond Padilla’s parents. Padilla had identified a female classmate who resembled Drew Barrymore, who appears in the opening scene of Scream, as a future intended victim. The pair also discussed terrorizing other students with threatening phone calls before attacking them, and investigators said they had talked about basing a future legal defense on Primal Fear, in which a young killer is acquitted after faking insanity.1CBS News. 2 Guilty of Scream Murder The trial judge ruled that no evidence relating to the movies would be admitted at trial.
Trial and Sentences in 1999
A juvenile court judge ruled in June 1998 that both teenagers could be tried as adults.4United Press International. Murder Charges in Scream Slaying They were tried by separate juries in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Ramirez’s jury returned its verdict first, convicting him of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. That verdict was sealed until Padilla’s jury reached its own conclusion.2Los Angeles Times. Movie-Obsessed Teens Convicted of Murder
On July 1, 1999, Padilla’s jury convicted him of first-degree murder of his mother and conspiracy to commit murder of his stepfather. Jurors also found true special-circumstance allegations that the killing was committed during a robbery and while lying in wait.5Findlaw. People v. Padilla, B265614 Under California law, Ramirez was held equally liable for the killing because he held the victim down. Superior Court Judge John Cheroske said the crime involved “careful planning and sophistication.”3Los Angeles Times. Teen Who Tied Killing to Movie Gets Life
Padilla was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Ramirez faced a sentence of 25 years to life. Pedro Castillo did not attend the weeklong trial. Deputy District Attorney Carol Rose said the verdict was “torment” for Pedro, who “never wanted to have contact with his stepson again, even though he raised him for 10 years.”2Los Angeles Times. Movie-Obsessed Teens Convicted of Murder
How Padilla’s Sentence Has Been Fought Ever Since
On direct appeal in 2001, a California Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to support the lying-in-wait special circumstance and struck it, but otherwise affirmed Padilla’s conviction and his life-without-parole sentence.6vLex. People v. Padilla, B265614 The sentence stood for more than a decade. Then a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings and California ballot measures reshaped juvenile sentencing and gave Padilla repeated openings to challenge his punishment.
Miller, Montgomery, and Resentencing
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment. Padilla filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in 2015 the trial court vacated his sentence and held a new hearing. The court found “no evidence of abuse, neglect, family alcohol abuse, drug abuse, lack of parenting, lack of education, or any prior acts of exposure to any violence” in Padilla’s home life, and it reimposed life without parole.5Findlaw. People v. Padilla, B265614
In 2016, the Court of Appeal reversed that resentencing, ruling the trial court had not applied the guidance of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which held that life without parole for a juvenile is unconstitutional unless the crime reflects “permanent incorrigibility” rather than the “transient immaturity” of youth. On remand, the trial court again imposed life without parole.5Findlaw. People v. Padilla, B265614
Proposition 57 and the 2022 Supreme Court Ruling
While Padilla’s case was cycling through resentencing, California voters approved Proposition 57 in November 2016. The measure required charges against minors to be filed in juvenile court, with a formal transfer hearing before any minor could be tried as an adult. Padilla argued that because his sentence had been vacated, his judgment was “nonfinal,” entitling him to a transfer hearing under the new law.
In June 2020, the Court of Appeal agreed, conditionally reversing Padilla’s sentence and ordering the case referred to juvenile court.7Findlaw. People v. Padilla, B297213 If the juvenile court concluded it would not have transferred the case to adult court under current law, it would treat Padilla’s convictions as juvenile adjudications. If it found transfer appropriate, the adult court would reinstate life without parole.
The state appealed. On May 26, 2022, in a 4–3 decision written by Justice Liu, the California Supreme Court affirmed. The majority held that when a habeas court vacates a prior judgment and orders a new sentencing hearing, “the prior judgment—now ineffective—can no longer be a final one.” Because the judgment was nonfinal, the ameliorative provisions of Proposition 57 applied. The court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that Padilla’s original fitness hearing under older law satisfied the new statute.8Stanford Law School. People v. Padilla, S263375 The case was remanded for a juvenile transfer hearing.9vLex. People v. Padilla, S263375
Where Samuel Ramirez Stands
Far less has been reported publicly about Ramirez’s legal trajectory. He was 15 at the time of the murder and was charged with capital murder with special circumstances, along with counts of torture, residential robbery, and conspiracy.4United Press International. Murder Charges in Scream Slaying Because of his age, prosecutors could not seek the death penalty. He was tried as an adult and faced 25 years to life after his conviction for first-degree murder and conspiracy.2Los Angeles Times. Movie-Obsessed Teens Convicted of Murder No subsequent appellate rulings involving Ramirez appear in the available record.