Filed 12/28/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S056391
v.
BOB RUSSELL WILLIAMS, JR.,
Kern
County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. SCA060642A
Defendant Bob Russell Williams, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of murder
(Pen. Code, § 187.)1 He admitted the special circumstances of committing the
murder in the course of a rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C)) and of a burglary (id.,
subd. (a)(17)(G)) but did not admit to the charged sodomy special circumstance.
He also pleaded guilty to five counts of burglary and one count of attempted
escape. At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty for the murder at death.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to modify the death verdict (§ 190.4,
subd. (e)) and sentenced defendant to death.
Defendant’s appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm this
judgment in its entirety.
1
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Prosecution Evidence
After defendant entered the above mentioned plea on June 4, 1996, the
penalty phase trial commenced. The circumstances of defendant’s rape and
murder of Mary Breck was the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case. That
evidence, based largely on statements made by defendant after his arrest, discloses
the following circumstances. On October 27, 1994, defendant noticed the Breck
residence during a morning walk along a canal bank that ran behind the residence.
He entered through the unlocked front door, heard a hairdryer blowing in another
room, and stole a wallet from a purse lying on the kitchen counter. He emptied the
wallet and threw it in the trash in a park, keeping the credit cards.
He then committed a burglary of the Elliott household nearby. Brandie
Barnden, the daughter of the owners of the house, who was staying there with her
husband, returned to the house around 10:30 a.m., while defendant was still in the
house, noticed various books of matches on the floor, and heard someone else pick
up the telephone when she was about to call her mother. She promptly left the
house and called the police. The police arrived on the scene and Joe Elliott, the
homeowner, eventually confirmed that a handgun was missing from the bedroom.
Other guns and a black duffel bag containing a fishing tackle and a knife were also
missing but were found a short distance from the Elliott house.
Defendant lived at the time with his girlfriend, Tina Meagher, with her
mother, Deanna Meagher, and with Tina’s brother. Deanna Meagher received a
phone call at work about some burglaries in the area and returned home to talk to
defendant. She made clear to him that she “would call the authorities because she
wasn’t going to put up with anything.” She pretended to call a police detective
whose card she had and to leave a message for him. This upset defendant.
2
According to defendant’s testimony and his statements to Detective Legg, who
interviewed him shortly after his arrest, he took her to mean that she suspected
him of being involved in the burglaries and believed the police were “going to get
him.” After this brief discussion, defendant left, stating that he was going to check
on a job.
According to his statement to Detective Legg, defendant left the Meagher
house around 9:30 a.m. and returned to the Breck house with the credit cards he
had stolen from the house the previous day. He noted the absence of a white
pickup truck that the cards he had stolen informed him was owned by the residents
of that address. Defendant knocked, and Mary Breck came to the door wearing a
green nightgown. She returned wearing a sweater. He gave her the missing credit
cards and she gave him $5. Breck said that her driver’s license was missing and
she would like to see that returned as well. Defendant walked back to the park and
retrieved the license from the trash can where he had disposed of it the day before.
When defendant returned, Breck again answered the door. He pushed her
down as hard as he could, made her crawl into the living room, and tied her hands
with a telephone cord. She pleaded with him not to be hurt and said she would do
anything, whereupon defendant tied a bandana around her mouth to keep her quiet.
He pulled her into the bedroom, and cut her clothes off with a knife he had been
carrying, in order to embarrass her. Defendant testified that he did not cut Breck
with a knife and had no explanation for photographs showing that Breck’s hands
were cut.
According to his statement to Detective Legg, once Breck lay naked on the
floor he “noticed her pussy,” which excited him, and he proceeded to pull down
his pants and forcibly rape her. When asked why he did so, he said that he “just
wanted to hurt her.” Defendant related to Detective Legg that he did not think the
rape had hurt Breck, so he sodomized her “two or three times.” Defendant fondled
3
and licked her breasts, and rubbed his penis on them. When he ejaculated, his
penis was not inserted.
Defendant
then
blindfolded Breck by tying strips of pillowcase around her
eyes. He took a belt that was lying on a chair in the bedroom and put it around her
neck, pulling on it for five minutes until his muscles could not pull anymore. He
believed he had killed her but then heard gurgling sounds in the bedroom. He
returned to the bedroom, and strangled her with the belt as hard as he could for
“what seemed like another 15 minutes” until he was certain she was dead. He then
dragged her body outside because he wanted “to look around the residence for
things to steal [and] did not want to hear the gurgling noise again.” Defendant
took a portable television, a camcorder, and the keys to a Lexus parked in the
garage.
Breck’s body was discovered around 2:00 p.m. by Susan Reese, Breck’s
sister-in-law. Blood samples taken on the scene were consistent with the victim
and not with defendant. Tests of Breck’s body for semen were inconclusive.
Detective Legg arranged to have a “sex kit” done on defendant, and a penile swab
test tested negative for glycogenetic epithelial cells, an indicator of vaginal
contact, as well as negative for fecal material.
Defendant testified that he took fishing poles from the victim’s garage, as
well as the car. According to his testimony, he took these items because he
“realized something wrong [had] happened, and [he] just needed to get away from
people . . . and figure out what to do.” Defendant testified that he drove back to
the Meagher house, where he picked up his clothes, a gear bag and the .38-caliber
special handgun he had stolen from the Elliott house.
Defendant left Bakersfield for the Kern River canyon, where he fished for
several hours. After defendant resumed the drive, the stolen Lexus was spotted by
4
the California Highway Patrol, and, after a high-speed chase, defendant was
apprehended.
Also part of the prosecution’s case was the victim impact evidence
concerning the effects of Mary Breck’s murder on her husband and two children.
The entire family went through bouts of depression. Breck’s son, a high school
senior and an exceptional student, stopped attending classes and failed to graduate
from high school. Her daughter was sleeping 15 to 18 hours a day and was having
nightmares. Steven Breck testified to his difficulty coping with the death of his
wife, with whom he had had a 26-year relationship, whom he described as his
“one and only love.” Breck’s brother and niece also testified about the pain of
losing her.
B. Defense
Evidence
The defense case in mitigation consisted principally of evidence of the
abuse defendant suffered as a child, primarily from his stepmother, and of his own
mother’s neglect. Six months after defendant was born, his parents separated.
According to the testimony of his mother, Jennifer McNees, defendant’s father
Bob Williams, Sr., was abusive to her in the presence of the children. He retained
custody of defendant in Louisiana, and defendant was cared for by his paternal
grandparents and great-grandmother. When defendant was five years old, he went
to live with his father and stepmother after his father remarried. His stepmother
had a son one and one-half years older than defendant.
Soon thereafter, they moved to Virginia. Joan Nelson, who was a social
worker in Roanoke County, Virginia, helped to document the abuse of defendant,
which led to his placement in foster care in 1983 when he was seven. The
investigation uncovered a pattern of abuse at the hands of defendant’s stepmother.
This included locking defendant out of the house, denying him water, forcing him
5
to eat hot peppers if he lied, cutting his clothes off of him, and rubbing his face in
urine when he urinated on the floor. Defendant had reported to school authorities
in Louisiana that his stepmother had hit him with her fist, a report confirmed by an
interview with the stepmother. Nelson observed semicircular bruises on
defendant’s buttocks consistent with beatings with a folded belt. Defendant
testified and had stated in a 1983 interview that he had been confined to the
basement, was often fed only peanut butter sandwiches or not given food, and that
he had to sometimes eat food placed on the floor “like a dog.” According to the
defendant’s testimony at trial, if he told his parents a lie, he would have to eat a
teaspoon of Tabasco sauce, and his stepmother changed the rule to eating the
whole bottle. He was made to take cold baths.
Defendant also testified that his stepmother had sexually abused him, that
she touched his penis and had him touch her private parts. Dr. Eugene Couture, a
clinical psychologist who examined defendant, testified defendant had told him
that his stepmother made him suckle at her breast as punishment and was made to
conduct oral sex on her. Defendant’s mother also testified that he had admitted to
her sometime prior to the murder that his stepmother had sexually abused him,
although he did not go into details.
Defendant’s stepmother was charged with felony child abuse and pled
guilty to a misdemeanor offense of child neglect in 1983. Defendant was placed
in a foster home, and his foster parents reported that during visits his stepmother
was “hateful” to him, and that his father kept him waiting all day for a visit.
Dr. Carol Logan, testified that she conducted psychological testing on
defendant while he was in foster care, which showed that he had an above-average
IQ of 119. But she concluded that defendant had suffered from serious emotional
abuse to which he responded with “aggressive acting out.”
6
When his foster parents moved out of state later in 1983, defendant
returned to his father and stepmother’s house. According to defendant, the abuse
began again. On one occasion defendant’s stepmother ordered him to strip naked
and tied him to the bed because he could not spell the word “trespass,” then went
to a ballgame with her son. Social worker Ellen Groff, who had worked for the
Roanoke Department of Social Services, testified that defendant was found around
this time at a shopping center five miles from his home with a black eye that had
been inflicted a week earlier. He had reported to her that after discovering blood
on his shirt, the result of having been nipped in the ear by a puppy, his stepmother
ordered him to take his clothes off, tied him in bed by his feet with a rope, and
threatened to kill him if he left. He had nonetheless escaped.
Defendant was again removed from his home and, after briefly being
placed again in foster care, was sent to California to live with his mother. Chali
Houghteling, defendant’s half sister, testified that her mother did not try to help
defendant with his problems and had tried to give defendant to a neighbor.
Defendant got into fights and did not pay attention in school. Defendant’s mother
called the police when it was found defendant had “jammed” his half sister Stacey
Lorraine with a pair of scissors, leaving a slight mark on her hand. His mother
expected to pick him up at juvenile hall later that night, but instead he spent over a
year in the Children’s Home of Stockton.
When he returned to his mother’s home, she had remarried. In November
of 1988 when defendant was 12, he took a bicycle, a fishing pole, some military
medals and a camera belonging to his mother’s husband and ran away from home.
He eventually returned home and ran away again. This time his mother refused to
allow him to return to the house and told the police to take him into custody. He
spent the next five years in group homes and juvenile hall. His mother seldom
visited him. In 1993-1994, while attending his senior year in high school, he lived
7
with his younger half brother Timmy in the house his mother had formerly
occupied in Bakersfield. Timmy testified that defendant and he were best friends
and that defendant looked after him. They lived there without adult supervision
except for visits by defendant’s older sister.
Various mental health professionals testified on defendant’s behalf. Dr.
Eugene Couture testified that defendant was competent to stand trial, legally sane,
and that there was no evidence of brain damage. He opined that the most
appropriate diagnosis for defendant was antisocial personality disorder, a disorder
characterized by a “pervasive pattern of disregard and violation of the rights of
others.” People diagnosed with this disorder typically were abused as children.
Defendant also presented various character evidence. Defendant met Tina
Meagher at a dance and shortly thereafter Tina became pregnant by him. Their
son was born March 15, 1995, after defendant was jailed for the Breck murder.
Tina testified that defendant before the murder had expressed the desire that they
raise the baby together and would attend obstetrician’s appointments with her.
Defendant did not physically or sexually abuse Tina. She described him as “very
polite, kind, nice.” Defendant also got involved in country western dancing and
bull riding, and witnesses who participated with him in those activities testified to
having a good opinion of him. Michael Chambers, a cellmate of defendant in
early 1995, while defendant was awaiting trial, testified that defendant showed
remorse for his crimes.
Defendant himself testified that when committing murder, he had thoughts
of what his stepmother had done to him, and was reacting to those thoughts.
Defendant testified that he was “real angry” with himself and “sorry.”
8
II. DISCUSSION
Because defendant pleaded guilty and does not contest the validity of that
plea, all of his claims pertain to the penalty phase of the trial.
1. Failure
to
Appoint
Keenan Counsel
Defendant claims that the trial court’s revocation of the appointment of
cocounsel, also known as Keenan counsel, constituted error. (Keenan v. Superior
Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424 (Keenan).)
Factual Background
Defendant’s previous counsel, Kyle Humphrey, moved on December 15,
1994, to have Larry Fields appointed as Keenan counsel. Humphrey, in his
declaration, emphasized that this was a capital case and there would be an
“enormous amount of legal services involved” in the preparation of motions for
the guilt and penalty phases. The motion was granted and Fields was appointed
cocounsel.
On July 12, 1995, Humphrey and Fields filed a motion to be relieved as
counsel on the grounds of conflict of interest due to prior representation of a
potential witness. The motion was granted on July 14, 1995 by Judge Jerold
Turner. At the same time Judge Turner appointed in their places Dominic
Eyherabide as lead counsel and Michael Dellastritto as cocounsel.
During a hearing on a motion to continue the trial date, Judge Oberholzer
noted the lack of any request for cocounsel on Eyherabide’s part or any affidavit in
support of such request pursuant to section 987, subdivision (d), and asked for
such documentation.
Judge Oberholzer ultimately denied the request for Keenan counsel. He
stated that he did not “find anything sufficiently complex” that would warrant
appointment of cocounsel. The court noted that the guilt phase would “not be
9
particularly involved” because of defendant’s confession, and that counsel’s
efforts “have to be directed to the penalty phase.” Counsel responded that the
guilt phase might become more involved due to potential mental state defenses,
and that in any case the penalty phase would be extensive, in part due to the
prosecution’s litigation of defendant’s past criminal activity. The trial court
expressed the view that much of the required preparation could be done by an
investigator rather than by second counsel and denied the motion.
Applicable Law
In Keenan, supra, 31 Cal.3d 424, 432, we explicitly recognized that a trial
court may under some circumstances abuse its discretion by failing to appoint
second counsel in a capital case. Keenan was in part codified in section 987,
subdivision (d), which states: “In a capital case, the court may appoint an
additional attorney as a cocounsel upon a written request of the first attorney
appointed. The request shall be supported by an affidavit of the first attorney
setting forth in detail the reasons why a second attorney should be appointed. Any
affidavit filed with the court shall be confidential and privileged. The court shall
appoint a second attorney when it is convinced by the reasons stated in the
affidavit that the appointment is necessary to provide the defendant with effective
representation. If the request is denied, the court shall state on the record its
reasons for denial of the request.”
Defendant contends the trial court erred in revisiting and overturning the
decision of a previous judge to authorize Keenan counsel. (See People v. Riva
(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 981, 991 [generally one trial judge may not overrule
another one].) But even if Judge Oberholzer exceeded his jurisdiction in revoking
the appointment of Keenan counsel, such error is not a basis for reversing the
judgment.
10
“The appointment of a second counsel in a capital case is not an absolute
right protected by either the state or the federal Constitution. (People v. Jackson
(1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 286-288; Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424,
428-430.) Thus, the error, if any, . . . must be judged under the standard
enunciated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, i.e., whether it is
‘reasonably probable’ a result more favorable to the defendant would have been
reached had the error not occurred.” (People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 997,
fn. 22.)
Defendant claims that the trial court’s action in revoking appointment of
Keenan counsel was in excess of its jurisdiction and was structural error, whereas
if the trial court had merely abused its discretion -- for example, if the first judge
to consider the request had incorrectly determined that Keenan counsel was not
warranted -- harmless error analysis would apply. But the fact that the trial court
allegedly exceeded its jurisdiction, rather than abused its discretion does not
change the fact that it is subject to harmless error analysis under the Watson
standard. Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 310, cited by defendant,
does not support his position. That case recognizes certain structural errors not
subject to harmless error analysis, such as the total deprivation of the right to
counsel, the exclusion of members of a race from the grand jury, denial of the
right to self-representation at trial, or denial of a public trial. “Each of these
constitutional deprivations is a similar structural defect affecting the framework
within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process
itself. ‘Without these basic protections, a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its
function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal
punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.’ ” (Ibid.) But defendant fails
to explain why the erroneous deprivation of Keenan counsel that results from
excess of jurisdiction as opposed to abuse of discretion should be considered
11
structural error requiring reversal. We will therefore review the revocation of
Keenan counsel for prejudice under Watson’s “reasonably probable” standard.
Defendant claims two different types of prejudice. First, he contends that
defense counsel pressured him to plead guilty because the lack of resources would
have made it virtually impossible for counsel to conduct both the guilt and penalty
phases. Although the evidence that defendant committed the murder is
overwhelming, defendant contends that there were meritorious mental state
defenses that might have lessened his culpability at the guilt phase.
The record does not support defendant’s claim. Prior to accepting
defendant’s guilty plea, the prosecutor, District Attorney Edward Jagels, had a
colloquy with Defense Counsel Eyherabide. The prosecutor asked whether “you
believe that in entering this plea you may be gaining a tactical advantage with
regard to the penalty phase of the trial?” Counsel responded: Yes, . . . it’s for
tactical reasons, yes. . . . We’re doing it because we think it’s the best interest
[from a] tactical standpoint and because he’s guilty.” The prosecutor then asked if
counsel was of the opinion “as an experienced attorney that based on the strength
of the trial . . . your client will be convicted of the offense of [sic] which he’s
pleading guilty?” Counsel responded, “Yes I do.” Moreover, counsel’s
confidence that his client would have been convicted at the guilt and special
circumstance phases is well supported by the evidentiary record. Counsel
apparently believed that defendant had little to gain from making the prosecutor
prove his guilt, and that there was some tactical advantage in gaining sympathy for
his client and taking the focus to some extent away from defendant’s crime by
proceeding directly to the penalty phase. Although the strategy ultimately was
unsuccessful, we cannot say that it was an unreasonable decision. More
importantly, nothing in the present record suggests that this strategic decision
would have been altered had defendant been permitted a second attorney.
12
Defendant also claims that the lack of Keenan counsel hampered his ability
to mount a penalty phase defense. Again, the record does not support his
contention. Rather it shows that counsel presented an impressive defense at the
penalty phase, one that included extensive evidence of defendant’s physical and
emotional abuse at the hands of his stepmother, testimony of a number of mental
health professionals who had treated defendant, as well as the testimony of friends
and family regarding defendant’s redeeming qualities and remorse for the crime.
Defendant does not allege otherwise except in conclusory terms. 2
We therefore conclude that even if denial of Keenan counsel was error, it
was not prejudicial.
2. Inadequate Investigative Funds
Defendant contends there was inadequate provision of investigative funds.
The facts are these. On January 17, 1996, counsel requested funds to hire Pat
McGregor, an investigator specializing in penalty phase preparation. He
represented that she was willing to work for $35 per hour, which was higher than
the $20 per hour standard rate for investigators in Kern County at the time. The
trial court, again Judge Oberholzer, reluctantly agreed to compensation at the
higher rate because the case was coming to trial shortly and because there would
be only one attorney on the case. The trial court ordered a total of $7,000 in
investigative funds, some of which had already been allocated to an investigator
hired by the previous counsel, leaving a balance of approximately $4,375.
2
Defendant also argues that even if Judge Oberholzer did not act in excess of
his jurisdiction, he abused his discretion because the case was of sufficient
complexity to require cocounsel. Because, as explained below, we find no
prejudice from the decision to revoke Keenan counsel’s appointment, we need not
reach this question.
13
On April 3, 1996, when counsel submitted a bill for McGregor of $507,
Judge Oberholzer apparently changed his mind, determining that there was no
evidence of special expertise that would justify the higher $35 per hour rate, and
that McGregor would henceforth be compensated at $20 an hour. Counsel offered
to speak with McGregor about her willingness to work at the lower rate but
apparently she stopped work on the case. The next day the trial court authorized
expenses for Counsel Eyherabide himself to travel to Oregon to interview
witnesses. Later, Joe Serrano did some investigative work, primarily the service
of subpoenas and interviews with jurors for the new trial motion discussed below,
for $20 per hour for a total of approximately $1,610. The balance of the
authorized investigative funds went unspent.
Defendant
contends
that
the trial court’s payment rate of $20 an hour made
it impossible to hire a competent death penalty specialist. He claims that this low
rate, combined with the lack of Keenan counsel, prejudicially hampered his
counsel’s ability to uncover and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase,
and that this violated his right to counsel, due process, equal protection and a
reliable penalty determination. 3
3
Defendant here and for a number of other claims urges that the error or
misconduct he is asserting infringed various of his constitutional rights to due
process and a fair trial. What we stated in People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412,
441, footnote 17, applies here: “In most instances, insofar as defendant raised the
issue at all in the trial court, he failed explicitly to make some or all of the
constitutional arguments he now advances. In each instance, unless otherwise
indicated, it appears that either (1) the appellate claim is of a kind . . . that required
no trial court action by the defendant to preserve it, or (2) the new arguments do
not invoke facts or legal standards different from those the trial court itself was
asked to apply, but merely assert that the trial court’s act or omission, insofar as
wrong for the reasons actually presented to that court, had the additional legal
consequence of violating the Constitution. To that extent, defendant’s new
constitutional arguments are not forfeited on appeal. [Citations.] [¶] In the latter
(footnote continued on next page)
14
The right to competent counsel under the federal and state Constitutions
includes the right to “reasonably necessary ancillary defense services.”
(Corenevsky v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 307, 319.) Section 987.9,
subdivision (a) provides among other things that upon the proper showing, funds
will be provided to indigent capital defendants for “payment of investigators,
experts, and others for the preparation or presentation of the defense.” The trial
court is to rule on the reasonableness of the request and “shall be guided by the
need to provide a complete and full defense for the defendant.” (Ibid.) We have
held that failure to seek pretrial investigative funds pursuant to section 987.9 was
one indication that counsel had failed to adequately investigate possible defenses,
requiring reversal in its entirety of a capital judgment. (In re Jones (1996) 13
Cal.4th 552, 565.)
Even if it were true that the unreasonable denial of section 987.9 funds
leading to an inadequate investigation and preparation could constitute reversible
error under some circumstances, a question we do not decide, no such error is
evident from the present record. There is no showing that $7,000 for conducting
the investigation, paid at a $20 per hour rate, was inadequate, or that it was
impossible to hire a competent specialist at that rate. In other words, defendant
fails to show that the trial court acted unreasonably pursuant to section 987.9.
Moreover, inasmuch as defendant’s claim can be understood as one for
ineffective assistance of counsel, based on counsel’s failure to adequately
(footnote continued from previous page)
instance, of course, rejection, on the merits, of a claim that the trial court erred on
the issue actually before that court necessarily leads to rejection of the newly
applied constitutional ‘gloss’ as well. No separate constitutional discussion is
required in such cases, and we therefore provide none.”
15
investigate available defenses because he was unable to do so, it is without merit.
“To find ineffective assistance of counsel a court must determine that counsel’s
performance was deficient, falling ‘ “below an objective standard of
reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms” ’ [citations], and that
there is a reasonable probability that ‘ “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.” ’ ” (People v. Kaurish (1990)
52 Cal.3d 648, 677.) Here, counsel himself conducted extensive witness
interviews and, as discussed above, mounted a substantial penalty phase defense.
Defendant contends that additional witnesses could have been produced to testify
to the abuse defendant suffered as a child. But given the quality and quantity of
witnesses testifying for the defense, there is no showing on this record that the
penalty phase defense mounted on defendant’s behalf fell below professional
norms, or that, had more witnesses been produced, it is reasonably probable a
more favorable verdict would have resulted. We therefore deny this claim.
3. Prosecutorial Failure to Give Notice of Aggravating Evidence
Pursuant to Section 190.3
Defendant
contends
the
prosecution failed to provide notice pursuant to the
fourth paragraph of section 190.3, which provides: “Except for evidence in proof
of the offense or special circumstances which subject a defendant to the death
penalty, no evidence may be presented by the prosecution in aggravation unless
notice of the evidence to be introduced has been given to the defendant within a
reasonable period of time as determined by the court, prior to trial. Evidence may
be introduced without such notice in rebuttal to evidence introduced by the
defendant in mitigation.” Defendant contends that the prosecution in fact
affirmatively misled defendant regarding the evidence to be presented, contrary
not only to statute but to due process under the United States Constitution, and that
16
therefore reversal is required. (See Sheppard v. Rees (9th Cir. 1989) 909 F.2d
1234.)
Specifically, defendant contends that the prosecution argued that defendant
committed the murder with premeditation and deliberation, notwithstanding the
fact that defense counsel made clear that defendant was pleading guilty to the
murder on a felony-murder theory, and that the prosecution had acknowledged this
felony-murder theory in the plea colloquy. Defendant was asked to plead, in count
one, that he murdered Breck “willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with
premeditation and malice aforethought.” During the plea colloquy, defendant’s
counsel stated: “I want to make one other proviso here . . . . As to count one, it
does allege the language of a premeditated murder. My client is pleading guilty
based on the fact that we feel a jury would convict him on the theory that he
committed a felony murder. In other words, there was killing during the
commission of a felony. In fact, all the special circumstances allege that it was
that.” The prosecutor explained that the language of the plea was the “standard
language traditionally used. It does not preclude us from utilizing a felony murder
theory at trial.” Defense counsel then made clear that he was not requesting that
the plea language be changed.
The People contend that defendant did not raise the inadequate notice
argument below and that it is forfeited. Assuming without deciding that
defendant’s claim is properly preserved, we reject it on the merits. Contrary to
defendant’s argument, the prosecution’s premeditation argument was properly
introduced. Evidence about the manner in which Breck’s murder occurred, which
tended to show premeditation, was “evidence in proof of the offense . . . which
subject[s] a defendant to the death penalty” and therefore is not subject to the
notice requirements of section 190.3. Nothing in the above plea colloquy
suggested that the prosecutor was consenting to refrain during the penalty phase
17
from presenting evidence regarding the circumstances of the crime that would
support a theory of premeditation or from arguing to the jury that the murder was
committed with premeditation. In fact section 190.3 specifically authorizes the
prosecutor to present evidence of the circumstances of the crime in aggravation.
There is therefore no violation of section 190.3’s notice requirement, nor is there
any due process or other constitutional violation that would arise from unfair
surprise to defendant or his counsel.
Defendant
also
claims
a violation of the section 190.3 notice requirement
and of his rights under the Fifth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, when the
prosecutor asked defendant’s mother, Jennifer McNees, whether defendant
became “interested in Satanism” at some point in his life. The trial court sustained
counsel’s objection to that question on Evidence Code section 352 grounds, i.e.,
that the probative value of such evidence would be outweighed by its prejudicial
effect. The prosecutor did ask whether defendant at one point listened to a lot of
heavy metal music, and whether defendant ever had a cross hanging upside-down
in his room. McNees answered affirmatively to the first question and “I don’t
recall” to the second. Defendant contends that the prosecution should have given
notice that he intended to present evidence that defendant was involved with
Satanism. Even assuming that the prosecutor’s questions could be viewed as a
violation of the notice requirement, and that the issue is preserved for appeal
notwithstanding defendant’s failure to request a continuance to prepare a response
(see People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 241-242), no conceivable prejudice
could have resulted from the above interchange. Counsel’s successful, timely
objection and McNees’s nonresponse to the question regarding the upside-down
18
cross meant the prosecutor was unable to present evidence of defendant’s alleged
interest in Satanism other than a penchant for heavy metal music.4
4. Judicial Error for Indicating During Voir Dire That the Murder
Was Premeditated
The court during voir dire indicated to some prospective jurors that
defendant had committed premeditated murder. One of those prospective jurors,
K.Y., served on the jury. The court told her to bear in mind “that the only time we
talk about a jury making a choice between [the] death penalty and life in prison
without the possibility of parole is where we have a first degree premeditated
murder and one or more special circumstances have either been found true or
admitted as in this case.” Defendant claims judicial error, because, as discussed
above, defense counsel made clear in the plea colloquy that he was pleading guilty
to first degree felony murder and not murder with premeditation and deliberation.
He contends this error violated his right to due process, to counsel, to an impartial
jury and a reliable verdict.
Defendant’s point is well taken. The above quoted statement is incorrect as
a matter of law, because those committing felony murder, without premeditation,
may be eligible for the death penalty. Because defendant did not plead guilty to
premeditated murder, premeditation and deliberation could not be assumed by the
jury, and if used by the prosecution as an aggravating circumstance, would have to
4
In his opening brief, defendant also argues that he did not receive notice of
the victim impact testimony of Amy May, the victim’s niece by marriage, and had
he received adequate notice, he could have lodged a “proper objection” on the
ground that May was not the “next of kin” authorized to make a sentencing
statement pursuant to section 1191.1. Defendant concedes in his reply brief,
however, that respondent is correct that such an objection would have been at odds
with our holding that victim impact evidence is not limited to the testimony of
blood relatives of the victim. (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 573.)]
19
be proved to the jury. Therefore, the trial court’s characterization of the murder as
“premeditated” had the potential of relieving the prosecutor of the obligation to
prove what may have been one of the key pieces of its case in aggravation, thereby
potentially violating defendant’s right to due process. (See Sandstrom v. Montana
(1979) 442 U.S. 510, 520-521; see also People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218,
1230-1232 [trial court erred during capital case in stating that premeditation was a
“gimme,” when special verdict form indicated the defendant had been convicted of
felony murder].)
We conclude the error was not prejudicial. The trial court’s remark was
followed by the prosecution’s presentation of evidence of the circumstances of the
crime. That evidence supported a premeditation and deliberation theory, which
the prosecution argued to the jury, particularly based on the fact that defendant
returned to strangle Breck a second time to make sure that she was dead. Defense
counsel argued to the contrary that the evidence showed that “we weren’t dealing
with a real sophisticated, planned-out murder.” The task of K.Y and the other
jurors was ultimately not to decide whether or not defendant acted with
premeditation, but rather whether the aggravating circumstances outweighed the
mitigating ones such that death was the appropriate penalty. It is highly unlikely
that the trial court’s brief voir dire remark labeling the murder as “premeditated,”
would have skewed a juror’s ability to weigh the evidence presented and make an
unbiased penalty determination. We therefore conclude the trial court’s error was
harmless under any applicable standard.
5. Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Voir Dire on Question of Religious
Affiliation
The jury questionnaire contained a question about whether the prospective
juror attended religious services regularly and about whether religious affiliation
or beliefs would cause “any problem sitting in judgment in a criminal case.”
20
Defense counsel requested a question about the prospective juror’s
“denominational preference,” which the trial court refused, remarking that “I
would be the first to say . . . it is helpful to know that, but also think there are a
couple of cases out there that seem to indicate that’s not appropriate inquiry.”
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing inquiry
into such preference, thereby violating his rights to due process and a jury trial.
We disagree.
The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the scope of voir
dire. (Code Civ. Proc., § 223; see People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1216, 1250-
1251.) In the present case, the trial court cannot be said to have exercised its
discretion, given its belief, as quoted above, that it had no discretion to permit
inquiry into denominational preference. Although exclusion of a prospective juror
on grounds of religious affiliation is improper (see In re Freeman (2006) 38
Cal.4th 630, 643), it is not necessarily true that inquiry into such affiliation is
forbidden during voir dire. Membership in a particular religious denomination or
sect indicated on a jury questionnaire may alert the trial court and counsel to a
potential bias in favor of or against the death penalty that requires further
exploration at voir dire. (See People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 118
[prospective juror identified himself with a particular denomination that believes
that God is the only person with the right to take someone’s life.].)
It does not follow, however, that a trial court’s refusal to allow a
denominational preference or affiliation question was either erroneous or
prejudicial. In the present case, voir dire included extensive inquiry by the trial
court, the prosecution, and defense counsel into prospective jurors’ attitudes
toward the death penalty. For example, in the case of K.Y., who was eventually
seated on the jury, the trial court asked her, as it did all prospective jurors, whether
she had any “conscientious opinions about the death penalty” that would cause her
21
to vote either automatically for or against the death penalty. When she stated that
she was “spiritually against the death penalty,” the trial court, the prosecutor and
defense counsel asked a number of follow-up questions to clarify her position.
Given this extensive inquiry into prospective jurors’ views on the death penalty,
the trial court was not required to place a question on denominational preference
on the jury questionnaire to be used as a preliminary indication of pro- or anti-
death-penalty bias.
Defendant contends that the refusal to ask such a question was particularly
damaging in the present case because, as explained more extensively below, one
of the jurors, T.F., committed misconduct by reading biblical verses aloud during
deliberations. Of course, the reasonableness of the trial court’s decision must be
considered at the time the decision was made and not with the benefit of hindsight.
Moreover, defendant points to no concrete evidence indicating that such an inquiry
would have led to T.F.’s exclusion from the jury. Nor does he contend that voir
dire regarding T.F.’s death penalty views was inadequate. We therefore conclude
that the trial court did not err in refusing a question on denominational preference.
6. Wheeler/Batson Challenges
Defense counsel objected to the peremptory challenges of three jurors, two
Hispanic and one Black, on the grounds that they were based on race or ethnicity,
and that the jury was the product of invidious discrimination and was not
representative of the community. (Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 86;
People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 271-272.) The trial court denied these
objections. Defendant now claims error.
A. Factual
Background
After exercising two uncontested peremptory challenges, the prosecutor
challenged R.R., a Hispanic male. Counsel made a Wheeler motion, citing R.R.’s
22
questionnaire, in which he stated he thought the death penalty was imposed too
seldom. The questionnaire also revealed that R.R. was employed as a machine
operator for a beer distributor, had a wife employed as a substitute teacher and two
young children and was “basically . . .a real mainstream down the middle fair
juror.” Counsel also noted that R.R. had “a couple of DUI’s” but indicated that he
learned his lesson. The trial court noted that R.R. on his questionnaire stated “he
sometimes feels cops have attitudes because he feels they have too much power.”
The court then ruled that the defense had not made a prima facie showing of
discrimination. The court noted that this was the “first Hispanic excused” and that
the court had “observed at least one item that might be of significance to an
attorney.” While finding no prima facie case, the trial court invited the prosecutor
to “make an observation or observations” as to why he excused R.R. The
prosecution declined to do so, stating that it would be “counterproductive” in light
of his understanding of the law.
After the defense exercised its sole peremptory challenge and the
prosecution exercised another unanswered challenge, the defense made a Wheeler
motion to the challenge against C.K., who was a Black male. Counsel stated that
C.K. was a man who appeared to be in his 60’s, an Air Force veteran who did not
have any problem with the death penalty, and had been on a prior jury which had
rendered a guilty verdict. He appeared to be “an extremely neutral fair citizen.”
The trial court again did not find a prima facie showing. The court first observed
that K.Y., a Black woman, had been seated as a juror. He further noted that the
large number of C.K.’s stepchildren and relatives who had been in trouble with the
law and had been in prison, was “a factor that was unique” to C.K.5
5
We note that defendant is Caucasian.
23
After exercising another uncontested peremptory challenge, the prosecution
challenged F.D., an Hispanic male. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based
on the prosecution’s discriminatory challenges and the “systematic exclusion of
Hispanics from the jury.” He stated that F.D. appeared to be in his late 50’s and
was a postal carrier with children and grandchildren and a great respect for law
enforcement, who expressed the belief that the death penalty was imposed too
seldom. The trial court this time ruled that a prima facie case had been made and
directed the prosecutor to explain the reasons for the challenge. The prosecutor
explained that the prospective juror’s “demeanor and the manner in which he
answers questions struck me as an individual who was indecisive, perhaps did not
understand what he was being asked.” He further stressed that on his
questionnaire it stated that he did not “know if he could impose the death penalty
much.” The trial court denied the motion, noting that his own observations were
in accord with the prosecutor’s, that F.D. appeared to have trouble focusing on
what was being said and coming to grips with the issues, and that there were “long
pauses as he attempted to determine whether or not he could impose the death
penalty.”
B. Legal
Contentions
Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding no prima facie case had
been made with respect to R.R. and C.K. under the principles articulated in
Wheeler and Batson.6
A prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection under federal law
“can be made out by offering a wide variety of evidence, so long as the sum of the
6
Although counsel made no independent motion or objection based on
Batson in the trial court, his Wheeler motions were sufficient to preserve the
Batson claim on appeal. (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 117-118.)
24
proffered facts gives ‘rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” (Johnson
v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 169.) As we have explained: “[O]ur Wheeler
decision . . . alluded to a ‘reasonable inference’ of group bias as a basis for a prima
facie showing and also called for the defendant to establish a ‘strong likelihood’
that a juror has been peremptorily challenged on the basis of group bias.
(Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280, 281.) Our subsequent decision holding that
both of the quoted terms were essentially the same as the Batson standard, and that
a prima facie showing called for a demonstration that it was ‘more likely than not’
that group bias accounted for the challenge, was disapproved in Johnson, supra,
[545 U.S. at pp. 165-167, 173] (reversing People v. Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th
1302).” (People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 73.) In cases in which the trial
court found no prima facie showing of discrimination in jury selection, and it is
unclear what standard the trial court employed in making its determination, we
have reviewed the record independently to discern whether a prima facie showing
has been made under the proper “inference of discriminatory purpose” standard.
(See id. at pp. 71-74; People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 553-554.)
As to Prospective Juror R.R., we conclude the trial court did not err in
determining a prima facie case had not been made. Although R.R was presumably
a member of a cognizable racial or ethnic group, there was nothing else to indicate
group bias. At the time his removal was challenged, he was the only Hispanic
prospective juror to have been considered. His expressed sentiment of skepticism
toward the police and his two DUI misdemeanor convictions prosecuted by the
same office that was trying this case, one of which was approximately five years
before the trial, serve as neutral bases for the peremptory challenge.
It is true that defendant’s challenge may be somewhat stronger when the
challenge is viewed in light of the subsequent challenge to another Hispanic juror,
F.D.. However, as we have recently held, a trial court has no sua sponte duty to
25
reexamine rulings on previous Wheeler/Batson motions once it determines that a
prima facie case has been made as to one juror. (People v. Avila, supra, 38
Cal.4th at p. 549.) Defendant did not request that the trial court revisit R.R’s
challenge after the court had found a prima facie case of discrimination in the F.D.
challenge, and we review whether the trial court’s decision was correct at the time
it was made and not in light of subsequent events. Moreover, even if the trial
court had been asked to revisit the R.R. challenge, we find no basis for concluding
that its determination would have been different. The prosecution’s reasons for
excusing F.D. based on his demeanor and his hesitation regarding his ability to
impose the death penalty were strongly confirmed by the trial court’s own
independent observations, as discussed above. Therefore the challenge to F.D.
would have added little to defendant’s Wheeler motion with respect to the R.R.
challenge.7
We also conclude that the trial court did not err in finding no prima facie
case with respect to the challenge of Prospective Juror C.K. As discussed, a
significant number of his stepchildren and blood relatives had been in trouble with
the law and had been to prison, and he stated that “I have so many relatives that
have been in and out of court . . . I would have to have four or five pages to write
down . . . the different trials that they went through.” At least some of them had
been involved in the Kern County criminal justice system. One of his stepchildren
had been prosecuted for rape by the Kern County District Attorney’s Office
approximately three or four years before the present trial took place, a prosecution
that resulted in an acquittal. C.K. had personally been involved in helping some of
7
Because the challenge to F.D. appears to have been well founded, we also
reject defendant’s additional contention that the prosecutor’s reasons for
challenging F.D. were insufficient.
26
his relatives through the criminal justice system. The above taken together
constitutes a substantial race-neutral basis for a peremptory challenge. Moreover,
he was the only prospective Black juror peremptorily challenged, and at the time
of the challenge a Black woman had been seated on the jury. The subsequent
seating of another Black juror reinforces our confidence that the trial court did not
err in ruling that defendant had not carried his burden of making a prima facie case
of discrimination.
Defendant also contends that comparative analysis of prospective minority
jurors subject to peremptory challenge and seated White jurors demonstrates the
prosecution’s discriminatory intent. Assuming without deciding that appellate
courts are obliged to undertake comparative analysis in the present case (see
Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 241; People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at
p. 546), we disagree that the comparative analysis that defendant presents in this
court assists his case. Defendant points to three jurors who had some supposedly
comparable experience with law enforcement or involvement in the criminal
justice system. Prospective Juror L.J. had a son who had been convicted of a
marijuana-related misdemeanor. L.J. did not have nearly as extensive a family
involvement in the criminal justice system as did C.K., and did not express a
negative attitude toward law enforcement officers as did R.R.. Another juror,
E.G., had had a daughter-in-law whose brother was convicted of murder but,
unlike C.K., the juror did not appear to have any connection to the case or attend
court proceedings.
A closer question is presented by Juror S.M. S.M.’s husband was a witness
in the highly publicized murder trial of Patrick Dunn, which was the subject of a
book, Mean Justice, by Edward Hulme that was highly critical of the prosecutor in
this case, District Attorney Ed Jagels, and the criminal justice system in Kern
County. S.M. stated she felt that “there were some things that weren’t properly
27
brought out” by the prosecution, which would have led to more a favorable result
for Dunn. Therefore S.M., unlike C.K., came away from her experience with the
Kern County criminal justice system with a belief that the prosecution, and in all
likelihood the prosecutor in the present case, had been unfair to a defendant, and in
particular a murder defendant. S.M. did profess that this experience would not
affect her ability to be a fair juror on a murder trial, but so did C.K. Unlike R.R.,
she had not been recently prosecuted by the Kern County District Attorney, but
neither had C.K. On the other hand, S.M.’s husband was a witness in a Kern
County trial, whereas some members of C.K.’s family had been defendants.
Although it is difficult to explain on the cold record and without the benefit
of having heard the prosecutor’s reasons for the peremptory challenge of C.K.,
why S.M. was seated and C.K. was not, we do not believe this difficulty should be
a basis for concluding there was prima facie case that a Wheeler/Batson violation
had been committed. Our confidence in the results of appellate comparative
analysis is somewhat diminished when there is a “lone questionable peremptory
challenge” and the record reveals “a sound, objectively plausible basis” for the
challenge. (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1254 (conc. opn of Mosk,
J.) (Jackson).) Moreover, C.K. was the only Black juror to be peremptorily
challenged: (Cf. Miller-El v. Dretke, supra, 545 U.S.231, 241 [125 S.Ct. 2317,
2325] [10 Black prospective jurors struck and one on panel].) Although, to be
sure, a Wheeler/Batson violation may occur with a single discriminatory
challenge, when as here there is a legitimate basis for dismissing the prospective
juror and no pattern of discrimination appears as to Black jurors, a court should be
hesitant to infer a Wheeler/Batson violation when comparative analysis raises
questions as to a single prospective juror, particularly “given the legitimate role
that subjective factors may have in a prosecutor’s decision” to challenge or not
challenge jurors peremptorily. (Jackson, supra, at p. 1254 (conc. opn. of Mosk,
28
J.).) We therefore conclude that there was no prima facie case that a
Wheeler/Batson violation was committed in excluding C.K.
7. Erroneous Admission of Aggravating Evidence
Defendant claims that several pieces of aggravating evidence were
erroneously introduced at the penalty phase, in violation of his rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We will
consider each of these in turn.8
A. Admission of the Anonymous Phone Calls
First, defendant claims there was insufficient foundation to hold him
responsible for several late-night phone calls made the night before the murder to
the Breck residence, in which the caller hung up immediately after the phone was
answered. He claims that these phone calls tended to buttress the prosecutor’s
contention that defendant planned and premeditated the murders.
Evidence Code section 403 states in pertinent part: “(a) The proponent of
the proffered evidence has the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of
the preliminary fact, and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court
finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the
preliminary fact, when: [¶] . . . [¶] (4) The proffered evidence is of a statement
or other conduct of a particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that
person made the statement or so conducted himself.” Here, the trial court did not
err in admitting the evidence. The day before the phone calls, defendant had
8
In his opening brief, defendant contended that it was error to admit the
victim impact testimony of Amy May, the victim’s niece by marriage, because she
was not a blood relative. Defendant acknowledges in his reply brief that we have
already rejected this limitation on victim impact testimony. (People v. Brown,
supra, 31 Cal.4th 518, 573.) Defendant asks us to reconsider our holding in
Brown, but provides no persuasive reason for doing so.
29
stolen Breck’s wallet, and although not clear from the record, the wallet may have
contained a card or document with Breck’s unlisted number. Defendant
burglarized Breck’s home and raped and murdered her the following day. The
jury may reasonably have inferred that defendant made those calls. Moreover,
evidence of the calls touched only tangentially on the question of defendant’s
mental state at the time of the crimes, and therefore their admission, if error,
would have been harmless by any applicable standard.
B. Admission of Location of Johnson and Glass Burglaries
The prosecution sought to admit under section 190.3, factor (b) evidence of
three burglaries that had occurred shortly before the murders, as showing “[t]he
presence . . . of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or
attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or
violence.” The trial court initially excluded evidence of the circumstances of two
of these crimes, the burglaries at the Johnson and Glass residences, although it
allowed the fact of his conviction for these burglaries to be admitted under section
190.3, factor (c). At the close of the trial, just prior to instructing the jury,
however, the trial court ruled that evidence of defendant’s convictions for these
burglaries was not admissible under factor (c), because convictions are only
admissible under this section if they predate the murder or murders with which a
defendant is charged. (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1223.) Because
the convictions for these burglaries were contemporaneous with defendant’s
murder conviction, they were therefore not admissible as prior felony convictions.
The trial court also ruled, however, that evidence of the Johnson and Glass
burglaries was still properly admitted under section 190.3, factor (a), the
circumstances of the crime, because they tended to show defendant’s state of mind
30
as someone in trouble with the law seeking to find the means to get away, at the
time the murder was committed.
Notwithstanding the initial limitations on the presentation of the evidence
regarding the Johnson and Glass burglaries, the prosecutor, during the opening
statement, showed the jury a map of where the various burglaries occurred and
divulged the locations of the Johnson and Glass burglaries. Counsel eventually
objected and the trial court sustained the objection, not allowing the prosecutor to
complete this part of his presentation. Defendant contends disclosure of the
location of these burglaries was prejudicial error, resulting in violations of his
right to due process, to counsel, and to an impartial jury.
The trial court’s exclusion of the circumstances of the Johnson and Glass
burglaries was based on the erroneous belief that such burglaries were only
admissible to the extent allowed under section 190.3, factor (c), rather than factor
(a). It is unclear what limitations if any would have been placed on the admission
of such evidence if it had been admitted under factor (a). But even assuming
error, no prejudice resulted. Defendant contends that the fact these burglaries,
together with the Elliott burglary, which was admitted into evidence, and the
Breck burglary/murder, were in the same location supported the prosecution’s
premeditation theory. In fact the evidence of the location of the burglaries was at
best only incidentally connected to the prosecution’s theory of defendant’s mental
state. We conclude that divulging the location of these burglaries was harmless
under any applicable standard.
C. Admission
of
Circumstances of the Elliott Burglary
Defendant
contends
that evidence of the Elliott burglary was erroneously
admitted under section 190.3, factor (b). After defense counsel objected before
trial to the admission of evidence of that burglary, the prosecution made an offer
31
of proof, indicating that defendant used a knife to gain access to the house, that he
stole a number of guns from the Elliott residence, and that the Elliotts’ adult
daughter returned to the house apparently while defendant was inside, although
there was no direct contact between them. The trial court concluded that the
evidence should be admitted, stating that there was “a fair inference that there is
an implied threat to use force or violence.”
At trial, the Elliotts’ daughter, Brandie Barnden, testified that she returned
to the Elliott house around 10:45 a.m. after having been at school, and noticed that
there were several matchbooks on the floor, that the garage door was not locked,
and that the door from the garage to the back yard was open. When she entered
her parents’ bedroom to listen to messages on the answering machine, something
caught her eye like the movement of a shoe, but she believed her mind was
playing tricks on her. When she telephoned her mother shortly thereafter, she
thought someone else was on the line, which caused her to leave the house and call
the police. Barnden’s father, Joe Elliott, subsequently reported several missing
guns and his fishing tackle. Most of the guns were recovered in a duffel bag
approximately 150 yards from the Elliott house, but a .38-caliber special handgun
was found on defendant.
Defense counsel move to strike evidence concerning the Elliott burglary,
contending it did not meet the criteria of section 190.3 for violent criminal
activity, and that this case was distinguishable from one in which we had admitted
burglary evidence, People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 672-678 (Clair). The
trial court denied the motion, stating that the fact that there was a “potential
confrontation with a[n] armed burglar” made the situation “fraught with the
potential for violence.” Defendant claims the trial court erred.
In
Clair, the evidence showed that the defendant broke into a woman’s
then-unoccupied apartment, that he was captured lying in the woman’s bed in his
32
underwear, and had brought a butcher knife with him that was found in the
bathroom. (Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 673-674.) We affirmed the trial court’s
holding that the evidence was appropriately admitted under section 190.3 as
criminal activity employing force or violence. “There was an implied threat. The
reasonable inferences are these. Aware of the presence of those who came to the
apartment in response to his arrival, defendant took up the knife in the kitchen
against their imminent entry. He did so in order to avoid apprehension and make
good his escape. Certainly, his purpose was not to employ the weapon simply to
facilitate the taking of property: he evidently came equipped with a screwdriver to
that end. Not only did he take up the knife, but he also carried it around the
apartment as he seemingly readied himself for action. Apparently deciding at the
last moment not to risk a physical confrontation but to try to lie himself out of
trouble, he cast the weapon away before he actually put it to use. Thus, he chose
not to follow through. But he did not, and could not, undo what he had already
done. He made an implied threat to use the knife against anyone who might
interfere.” (Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 676-677.)
Defendant argues that in this case, unlike in Clair, there was no evidence
defendant was readying himself to commit violence and then abandoned the plan.
Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Elliott burglary,
we conclude that the error was not prejudicial. The facts of the burglary were not
particularly gruesome. Indeed, the very characteristics of the burglary that make
the question of its admissibility close, i.e., that defendant did not enter the house
with intent to commit violence, and that no violence resulted, undermine the
notion that the jury would have been swayed toward a death sentence by
knowledge of the facts of the burglary. In light of the other aggravating evidence
against defendant ⎯ the circumstances of the crime emphasized by the prosecutor,
as well as the properly admitted evidence about the burglary convictions ⎯ we
33
conclude that the admission of the facts about this arguably nonviolent burglary
was harmless by any applicable standard.
D. Admission of Evidence of Premeditation and Sodomy
Defendant claims evidence that the murder was premeditated and that he
sodomized Breck should not have been admitted, because he did not plead to
either premeditated murder or to sodomy. As discussed above, section 190.3
explicitly permits evidence regarding the circumstances of the crime, including the
circumstance that the murder may have been premeditated, during the penalty
phase, and nothing in the plea agreement precluded such admission. So, too,
nothing in the plea agreement prevented admission of evidence that defendant
sodomized Breck, as Detective Legg testified defendant had admitted shortly after
his arrest.
8. Exclusion of Tape Recording and Video Recording Showing
Remorse
Defendant made a statement to Detective Legg about five hours after he
was arrested. He confessed to the murder, and claimed he did not know what had
happened and “went crazy all of a sudden.” He also apparently cried during the
confession. The confession was tape-recorded. Defendant made a second
confession shortly thereafter at the police station, which was not tape-recorded or
transcribed, in which he claimed to have “blacked out,” regaining consciousness
only after the murder. Defendant gave a third interview approximately 24 hours
later, in which he confessed to the crime in detail, abandoning any suggestion that
he “blacked out.” The prosecutor sought to admit the tape and transcripts of this
third interview into evidence, but sought to exclude the tape and transcript of the
first interview, which he opposed because it was exculpatory hearsay. The trial
court agreed, over defense counsel’s objection. Counsel sought to admit the tape
to make clear to the jury that defendant experienced remorse shortly after he had
34
committed the crime. Defendant now claims the trial court erred in excluding the
recording of the first interview and that this error violated his rights to due
process, a fair sentencing hearing, and a reliable penalty phase determination as
guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
“A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for
abuse of discretion.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292.) “[A]
defendant’s due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty
phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present:
(1) the excluded testimony is ‘highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment
phase of the trial,’ and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of
the evidence.” (People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704, quoting Green v.
Georgia (1979) 442 U.S. 95, 97.)
Defendant argues that his crying during the first interview was not hearsay
and should therefore have been admitted. We considered a similar situation
recently in People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, in which the defendant claimed
that his sobbing and other emotional conduct depicted on a videotaped
interrogation with the police was admissible nonhearsay. As we stated:
“Defendant is correct that, by themselves, defendant’s emotional displays were
nonassertive conduct, and thus not within the hearsay rule. . . . [¶] But the
defense sought to introduce more than just evidence of the emotional displays
themselves. To explain the significance of the emotional displays, and particularly
defendant’s statement that as a result of the murder he had received an ‘injury
from [his] conscience,’ the defense sought to introduce the statements defendant
made during the videotaped interview. As defendant must concede, those
statements, including assertions and descriptions of his own feelings and other
mental states, were hearsay. . . . As the trial court correctly determined, the
35
circumstance that defendant made his statements during a postarrest police
interrogation, when he had a compelling motive to minimize his culpability for the
murder and to play on the sympathies of his interrogators, indicated a lack of
trustworthiness. In past decisions, we have upheld the exclusion of self-serving
postcrime statements made under similar circumstances.” (People v. Jurado,
supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 129-130.)
In the present case, as in Jurado, defendant’s nonassertive conduct was
intertwined with statements he made designed to minimize his culpability, e.g.,
that he went “crazy all of a sudden,” thereby tending to disavow that he committed
the murder with premeditation. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in excluding the taped interview containing such self-serving
statements.
Defendant
contends
that
the tape recording should have been admitted as a
spontaneous utterance. Although defendant did not explicitly seek to admit the
evidence on those grounds at trial, he argued when pressing his Green v. Georgia
claim that in effect the statement was particularly reliable because it was
spontaneous. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in implicitly rejecting that
contention. “Evidence Code section 1240 provides, in pertinent part, that evidence
is ‘not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule’ if it ‘[p]urports to narrate, describe,
or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant’ (id., subd. (a)),
and it was ‘made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of
excitement caused by such perception.’ (Id., subd. (b).) ‘The crucial element in
determining whether a declaration is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under
this exception to the hearsay rule is . . . not the nature of the statement but the
mental state of the speaker. The nature of the utterance ⎯ how long it was
made after the startling incident and whether the speaker blurted it out, for
example ⎯ may be important, but solely as an indicator of the mental state of the
36
declarant. . . . [U]ltimately each fact pattern must be considered on its own merits,
and the trial court is vested with reasonable discretion in the matter.’ ” (People v.
Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 516.) Here, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that defendant’s somewhat self-serving statements made
several hours after the murder did not qualify as a spontaneous utterance.
Defendant also claims the tape recording should have been admitted under
Evidence Code section 356, contending that because the court admitted the third
interview, it was obliged to also admit the first interview, a contention the trial
court rejected. Section 356 provides: “Where part of an act, declaration,
conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same
subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer
may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is
given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is
necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” “The purpose of
this section is to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act,
declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects
addressed. [Citation.] Thus, if a party’s oral admissions have been introduced in
evidence, he may show other portions of the same interview or conversation, even
if they are self-serving, which ‘have some bearing upon, or connection with, the
admission . . . in evidence.’ ” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156.) In the
present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
admission of the third interview did not require admission of a different interview,
and that no misleading impression was created by admitting one without the other.
Finally, defendant claimed the trial court erred in failing to admit a
videotape of his interview with a television reporter some 72 hours after his arrest,
in which he expressed remorse for the crime and extended condolences to the
victim’s family. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
37
videotape did not pass muster under Green v. Georgia, inasmuch as there is no
substantial reason for believing that defendant’s postarrest statement to the media
was particularly reliable.
9. Improper Exclusion of Mitigating Evidence
Defendant argues that various pieces of mitigating evidence were wrongly
excluded in violation of his United States Constitution Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments rights. Each of these claims will be considered in turn.
A. Evidence of Mistreatment by Defendant’s Father
On direct examination Jennifer McNees, defendant’s mother, when asked
why she and her then husband Bob Williams, Sr., had moved out of his parents’
house soon after their marriage, replied that it was “not a good situation.” When
asked to elaborate, the prosecution objected. In chambers, counsel responded that
he intended to ask about fights between McNees and Bob Williams, Sr., when
defendant was very young, and in particular about an incident in which Williams,
Sr., punched McNees in the stomach while she was pregnant with defendant. The
prosecutor objected that incidents that did not occur in defendant’s presence or
occurred when he was so young that he would not have a memory of them should
be excluded. The court ruled that testimony regarding the punching incident
would be excluded unless the defense was prepared to offer some foundational
medical testimony that defendant was injured as a result. The trial court also
ruled, however, that testimony of violence that occurred in defendant’s presence
even at a young age would be admissible. Defendant contends the trial court erred
in not allowing evidence that defendant’s father punched his mother when she was
pregnant with defendant.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a
capital jury not be precluded from “considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect
38
of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense
that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” (Lockett v.
Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586, 604, fns. & italics omitted.) Nonetheless, the trial
court still “ ‘determines relevancy in the first instance and retains discretion to
exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the
probability that its admission will create substantial danger of confusing the issues
or misleading the jury.’ ” (People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 64.) Defendant
argues on appeal that the punching incident would have shown that defendant was
an unwanted child, and the father, as well as the stepmother, neglected and abused
defendant. Defense counsel did not advance that theory of admissibility at trial,
nor is the act of violence toward the pregnant mother particularly probative of the
father’s subsequent conduct toward the child after he was born. Moreover, there
was considerable evidence that defendant’s father did not have a good relationship
with defendant. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding this testimony, and, even if it had, the error would have been harmless
under any applicable standard.9
B. Evidence
of
Accommodation of Sexual Abuse
Evidence was presented that defendant may have been sexually abused, as
well as physically and emotionally abused, by his stepmother. Some of the
testimony came from Vahid Sadeghi, a marriage, family and child therapist who
had worked with and examined defendant at age 16 when the latter was in a group
home for adolescents on probation for minor crimes. He testified that defendant
9
Defendant also contends conclusorily that the trial court erred in upholding
the prosecution’s objection to a question asked of social worker Joan Nelson about
defendant’s father’s reaction to the news that defendant was to be moved to
California to live with his mother. The exclusion of evidence of such a tangential
matter was not error.
39
had told him that his stepmother asked him to take off his clothes and lay in bed
before she hit him, which raised a “red flag” for Sadeghi that sexual abuse may
have occurred. Defendant denied to Sadeghi that such abuse had occurred.
Sadeghi testified that some children do not reveal to him that they have been
molested, but when asked if he believed defendant’s denial, the prosecution
objected to the question as calling for speculation, which the trial court sustained.
Later, forensic psychologist Eugene Couture testified that according to various
studies, only 2 percent of sexual abuse within families is reported.
Defendant claims the trial court committed error in sustaining the objection
to the defense counsel’s question. We disagree. Contrary to defendant’s
assertion, the exclusion of Sadeghi’s answer to the above question did not
undermine defendant’s ability to make the case that he had been the victim of
sexual abuse notwithstanding his earlier denials. The trial court acted within its
discretion in disallowing a question that required the witness to speculate about the
truth of defendant’s denial of sexual abuse, while allowing evidence that such
denial is common, permitting defendant to adequately make his case that the
denial was untrue.
C. Other
Evidence
Defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding testimony by
defendant’s girlfriend, Tina Meagher, that defendant had told her to move on with
her life and to marry someone who would adopt their child. The trial court ruled
such testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Defendant argues on appeal that the
evidence should have been admitted following Green v. Georgia, supra, 442 U.S.
95. As discussed above, under Green hearsay may be admitted at the penalty
phase of a capital trial if it is “highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment
phase of the trial,” and “substantial reasons existed to assume its reliability.” (Id.
40
at p. 97.) Defendant does not explain why either Green factor applies. Moreover,
nothing prevented defendant from retaking the stand to testify about this
statement. The claim therefore fails.
Defendant also claims error at the exclusion of a letter he had written his
mother as a child, which purported to show that defendant’s mother did not want
to visit her son. There was abundant evidence in the record that defendant’s
mother neglected and did not visit him. The exclusion of the letter, even if error,
was not prejudicial under any applicable standard.
The trial court also excluded a letter written by Irma Williams, defendant’s
grandmother, when defendant was around 16 years old, which stated that he could
come live with her. Defendant argues the letter was relevant for showing that his
placement with his mother was inadequate and his grandmother was offering him
a better alternative that he was never able to take advantage of. The trial court
concluded that the letter was not relevant to any issue in the case, that it was
written long after that placement, and that Irma Williams had already testified to
the substance of what was in the letter and had even read portions of the letter into
the record. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding
the letter.
10. Prosecutorial Conduct During Defendant’s Testimony Regarding
Sexual Abuse
On direct examination, defendant was asked if his stepmother had sexually
molested him and he replied that she had. At that point, apparently, the prosecutor
reacted in some visible and audible way to defendant’s answer. Defense counsel
asked for a hearing outside the presence of the jury. The trial court did not grant
the request, but directed the prosecutor “not to make any other noises at his table.”
At the next opportunity outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel
moved for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s previous conduct. He stated: “I
41
couldn’t actually see what counsel did but it had the sound as if he had just
dropped a binder or kind of flipped a notepad. But kind of like in disgust he threw
something and it was very audible to me . . . . I think he was trying to send a
message to the jury that he personally thinks that [defendant’s testimony was]
untrue. And that’s the only message I think that you could get from that reaction.”
Counsel also argued that the prosecutor, Edward Jagels, the Kern County District
Attorney had “a lot of stature in this community” and “when he does something
like that, I think it has a lot of influence over jurors.”
The prosecutor stated that he had dropped a yellow pad he was holding on a
binder, that the sound made was quite soft, and that he did so out of surprise
because he had had no previous information about defendant’s claims of
molestation.
The court denied the motion for the mistrial, stating: “What I observed was
essentially what [defense counsel] has described, that counsel slammed down
something, [it] wasn’t super loud, and rolled his eyes. And Mr. Jagels, you know
that’s inappropriate in front of the jury. I don’t want it to happen again.”
Defendant contends that the denial of this motion was in error, and violated his
Eight and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair penalty trial and reliable penalty
determination.
As the trial court’s comments indicate, the prosecutor’s behavior was
inappropriate. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 834 [prosecutor audibly
laughing in the middle of defense counsel’s examination of various witnesses is
misconduct].) But such conduct does not necessarily require a declaration of a
mistrial. “Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a
speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in
ruling on mistrial motions.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854.) “A
trial court should grant a mistrial only when a party’s chances of receiving a fair
42
trial have been irreparably damaged, and we use the deferential abuse of discretion
standard to review a trial court ruling denying a mistrial.” (People v. Bolden
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555.)
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for a mistrial. The trial court was in the best position to gauge the exact
nature of the prosecutor’s conduct and its likely effect on the jury. Nothing in the
record undermines the trial court’s implicit conclusion that the prosecutor’s brief
episode of inappropriate conduct did not irreparably damage defendant’s chance of
receiving a fair trial.
11. Prosecutorial Misconduct in Presenting Time and Place of Previous
Burglaries
As discussed in part 7, we reject defendant’s contention that there was
prejudicial error in disclosing the location of the Johnson and Glass burglaries.
Defendant also claims prosecutorial misconduct in such disclosure, in violation of
his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We reject that claim as
well. As explained above, the exclusion of the location of the burglaries was
based on the trial court’s initially erroneous belief that such burglaries were only
admissible as prior convictions under section 190.3, factor (c), rather than under
factor (a). In any case the mention of these locational facts to the jury was not
prejudicial under any applicable standard. We come to the same conclusion with
regard to the prosecutor’s statement that defendant took long walks to “case” the
houses in which the burglaries took place.
12. Other Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims
Defendant makes three other prosecutorial misconduct claims, which we
consider in turn.
43
A. Questions about Satanism
As recounted above in part 3, the prosecution asked defendant’s mother
Jennifer McNees if defendant became “interested in Satanism” at some point in his
life. The trial court sustained counsel’s objection to that question on Evidence
Code section 352 grounds, i.e., that the probative value of such evidence would be
outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The prosecutor did ask whether defendant at
one point listened to a lot of heavy metal music, and whether defendant ever had a
cross hanging upside down in his room. McNees answered affirmatively to the
first question and “I don’t recall” to the second. Defendant claims misconduct,
contending that the prosecution asked about defendant’s association with Satanism
without any good faith belief that such evidence existed in order to plant a seed in
the jury’s mind that there was such association. The record does not indicate bad
faith on the prosecutor’s part. Rather, a probation report revealed defendant’s
interest in heavy metal music and that he at one point had an upside-down cross in
his room. Furthermore, McNees refused to speak to the prosecution. The
prosecution legitimately sought to counter defense evidence that painted defendant
in a sympathetic light with questions designed to probe the probation report
material. Although the trial court sustained the objection to the prosecution’s
question regarding Satanism, the question itself did not rise to the level of
misconduct, nor did the follow-up questions regarding the upside-down cross or
heavy metal music.
B. Gang
Involvement
The prosecutor also asked McNees: “During the time that Bob lived with
you, did you notice any conduct on his part having to do with gangs?” She
answered, “No, sir.” Defendant again claims the prosecution asked the question in
bad faith to tarnish the jury’s view of defendant. Nothing in the record indicates
44
that the prosecution, who had had no previous access to McNees, was asking the
question in bad faith. Nor can be it said that the question itself, followed by the
negative response, was prejudicial to defendant’s case.
C. Questioning Regarding Premeditation
The prosecution asked defendant during cross-examination whether he had
initially lied to the police about the Breck burglary that had occurred the day
before the murder because the burglary would have made the murder seem more
premeditated. Defendant replied in the negative and stated only that he did not
want to admit the burglary to the police. Defendant now contends that the
prosecution committed misconduct by questioning him about premeditation,
because he had pleaded guilty only to first degree felony murder and not
premeditated murder. As explained above in part 3, nothing in the plea agreement
restricted the prosecution’s ability to present evidence of the circumstances of the
crime, including evidence of premeditation. There was no misconduct.
13. Jury Instructions About Premeditation and Impaired Capacity
Defendant claims the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte
on the issue of premeditation and deliberation, because whether or not defendant
committed premeditated murder, or nonpremeditated felony murder as he
professed in his plea, was a critical issue at the penalty phase. He contends this
failure to instruct violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The trial court is required to instruct on general principles of law relevant to
the case. (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154.) In the present case,
the jury was not required to make a determination on premeditation and
deliberation. Indeed, a capital jury during the penalty phase is neither statutorily
authorized nor constitutionally required to make any findings regarding the factors
45
in aggravation and mitigation. (See People v. Vieira, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 303.)
Instead, it is required only to weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence,
including the circumstances of the crime, in order to arrive at a penalty
determination. There is no reason why the jury should have had to view evidence
about how the murder took place through the filter of a legal definition of
premeditation and deliberation in order to make its penalty determination. The
lack of a premeditation instruction was not error.
Defendant also claims the trial court should have elaborated on section
190.3, factor (h), which states that the jury must consider “[w]hether or not at the
time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of
his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as
a result of mental disease or defect, or the affects of intoxication.” Defendant
argues that the trial court should have given an instruction, sua sponte, that would
have made clear that the impairment referred to in the above instruction
specifically could impair the defendant’s ability to deliberate. Again, because the
jury was not required to find whether or not defendant had deliberated, such an
instruction focusing on deliberation was not required or, in fact, appropriate.
Defense counsel at trial also requested an instruction elaborating on section
190.3, factor (h), and defendant on appeal contends it was error not to deliver at
least part of that instruction. The portion of the requested instruction that
defendant contends should have been delivered stated: “Mental or emotional
disturbance may result [from] any cause or may exist without apparent cause. For
this mitigating circumstance to exist, it is sufficient that . . . the defendant’s mind
or emotions were disturbed, that is, interrupted or interfered with, [from] any
cause whether [from] consumption of drugs, mental illness, or other cause, and
that he was under the influence of that disturbance when he killed Ms. Breck. A
person would be under the influence of a mental or emotional disturbance if a
46
mental or emotional condition existed which included [sic] his conduct so as to
make it different than it otherwise would have been. [¶] So if you are satisfied
from the evidence that at the time of the murder of Ms. Breck, the defendant was
under the influence of [a] mental or emotional disturbance, from any cause, it
would be your duty to find this as a mitigating circumstance.”
We find nothing in the above rather confusing instruction that would have
clarified the instruction already given pursuant to section 190.3, factor (h). The
trial court did not err in refusing such instruction.
Defendant also claims the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte
according to CALJIC No. 2.02 regarding the use of circumstantial evidence to
prove whether or not defendant possessed a particular mental state. That
instruction is intended for a jury that is required to find a mental state as an
element of a crime. (See People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1222.) As
explained above, the jury was not required to find at the penalty phase that
defendant possessed a particular mental state during the murder, such as
premeditation and deliberation. The trial court did not err in failing to give this
instruction.
14. Failure to Give Reasonable Doubt Instruction with Respect to
Sodomy Evidence
As discussed, defendant did not plead guilty to the sodomy special
circumstance; although he initially told Detective Legg he had sodomized Breck,
he recanted that confession. During the penalty phase, the prosecutor introduced
evidence of defendant’s confession of sodomy and argued to the jury that
defendant had in fact sodomized Breck. The trial court instructed the jury with a
modified CALJIC No. 2.01 instruction that before the jury could consider the
Elliott burglary “to be a criminal act involving an implied threat of force or
violence, it must determine the defendant armed himself and was in the house at
47
the same time as Mrs. Barnden. This proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt
. . . .” The trial court then instructed the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt
“with reference to the instruction just read.” Defendant now claims that the
reasonable doubt instruction should have also referred to defendant’s alleged
crime of sodomy, in other words, that the jury should have been instructed that it
could only consider the alleged sodomy against defendant if it concluded beyond a
reasonable doubt that such act occurred. He contends that this instructional error
violated his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.
Generally speaking, neither California law nor the United States
Constitution requires that aggravating factors be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1217.) The one exception is
unadjudicated criminal acts involving force or violence under section 190.3, factor
(b), which requires that jurors be instructed that they can consider such acts in
aggravation only if they find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had
committed the acts. (People v. Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743, 793.)
Defendant claims that the sodomy evidence was being introduced as an
unadjudicated criminal act under section 190.3., factor (b) and that therefore a
reasonable doubt instruction was required. The record does not support his
contention. The trial court instructed the jury that “evidence has been introduced
that may show that the defendant engaged in criminal activity other than the
instant offense and the Elliott burglary. You may not consider such evidence as a
factor in aggravation. You may consider the Elliott burglary in deciding whether
the defendant has engaged in criminal activity which involves the use of, or the
express or implied threat of force or violence, if you conclude the defendant armed
himself and was in the house at the time Ms. Barnden was present.” Thus, the trial
court made clear that the Elliott burglary was the only incident to be considered
48
under factor (b), and that they could not consider sodomy as independent criminal
activity but only as a circumstance of the murder of which defendant was being
tried.
Defendant asserts that the trial court’s instruction defining the term
“sodomy” indicated that sodomy was to be considered as a criminal act under
section 190.3, factor (b). The trial court stated: “Various types of crimes have
been mentioned in this case, ladies and gentlemen, and I won’t define them for
you except for one. It has been my experience that sometimes people do not
understand the meaning of the word sodomy and I will define that for you from a
legal perspective. Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the
penis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexual penetration,
however slight, is sufficient to complete the act of sodomy. Proof of ejaculation is
not required.”
Sodomy per se is not a crime and the trial court did not define the crime of
sodomy, which is the commission of sodomy under specified circumstances, such
as by means of force, or with minors. (§ 286.) Rather, the trial court defined the
word “sodomy” because of the jury’s possible unfamiliarity with it. Read in
conjunction with the instruction in the previous paragraph, in which the trial court
made clear that the Elliott burglary was the only crime other than the current
offense to be considered in aggravation, the jury would not have understood the
trial court’s definition of sodomy to imply that sodomy could be considered under
section 190.3, factor (b). Moreover, the prosecutor said nothing during closing
argument to suggest that evidence of sodomy would be considered as
unadjudicated criminal activity, and spoke of such evidence solely within the
context of elaborating upon the circumstances of the crime. We therefore
conclude that the failure to instruct on reasonable doubt in reference to defendant’s
alleged sodomy of Breck was not error.
49
15. Failure to Instruct on Mitigating Factors
The jury was instructed under a modified version of section 190.3, factor
(k) to consider “any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime
even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime, and any sympathetic or other
aspect of the defendant’s character or record that the defendant proffers as a basis”
for mitigation. (See People v. Easley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 858, 879, fn. 10.)
Defendant contends the trial court improperly refused requested jury instructions
that would have specified the sort of evidence that can be considered in mitigation
under factor (k). As defense counsel acknowledges, this court has rejected the
argument that the Constitution requires additional jury instructions elaborating on
modified factor (k). (See People v. Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 173-174 and
cases cited therein.) Defendant advances no persuasive argument for
reconsidering this position.
16. Responses to Jury Questions on Life Sentence
The jury was instructed: “It is the law of this state that the penalty for a
defendant found guilty of murder of the first degree shall be death or confinement
in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole in any case in which the
special circumstances alleged in this case have been found or admitted to be true.”
During deliberations, the jury asked the following questions: “Is it possible for the
court to provide the jury with a clear definition of the law of life in prison without
the possibility of parole. A. Does ‘life’ have time application [sic]; B. Does [sic]
any of the verdicts automatically go to appeals? C. Will the individual have the
right to go before a parole board even though they have no possibility of parole?”
The trial court discussed these questions with counsel outside the presence
of the jury, and defense counsel suggested that an instruction be given that
defendant “will never come before a parole board.” The trial court eventually
gave the jury the following response: “The instruction I’m going to read you and
50
will send back with you is this, which I think covers all three subparts of your
question: In making your decision in this case, as to the appropriate penalty, you
are to assume that if you select death that sentence will be carried out. If you
select life without possibility of parole, you are to assume that the defendant will
never be released from prison.”
Defendant claims judicial error from the trial court’s response, in violation
of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. His claims are based on
Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) 512 U.S. 154 and its progeny. In these cases,
the court has held that “where a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at
issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life
imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant ‘to
inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in
arguments by counsel.’ ” (Schafer v. South Carolina (2001) 532 U.S. 36, 39.)
This line of cases stemmed from South Carolina’s consistent refusal “to inform the
jury of a capital defendant’s parole eligibility status.” (Id. at p. 48, fn. omitted; see
also Ramdass v. Angelone (2000) 530 U.S. 156; Kelly v. South Carolina (2002)
534 U.S. 246.) The alternative to a death sentence was described in these cases as
“life imprisonment.” (Shafer, supra, at p. 48.) The Supreme Court held it to be
error for the trial court under these circumstances to reply to a jury question about
a defendant’s parole eligibility by saying that the jury was not to consider parole
eligibility in reaching its verdict, when the defendant is in fact not legally eligible
for parole.
Defendant’s attempt to draw a parallel between this line of cases and the
present one is unavailing. Here, the jury was instructed that life imprisonment was
“without the possibility of parole.” When asked by the jury whether “without the
possibility of parole” was in effect literally true, the trial court appropriately
responded: “If you select life without possibility of parole, you are to assume that
51
the defendant will never be released from prison.” Unlike the South Carolina
courts, the trial court was in no way being coy or uninformative about the nature
of the life sentence, but rather reaffirmed that the phrase “without possibility of
parole” was to be taken literally. In fact, the answer is very similar to the one
given in People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 436-438. In response to the
jury’s question of whether life imprisonment without parole “ ‘mean[s] exactly
what it implies,’ ” and related questions (id. at p. 436), the trial court stated:
“ ‘For the purpose of your deliberations, you are to assume life without the
possibility of parole means what it says.’ ” (Id. at p. 437, italics added.) We held
the response was not error. “By informing the jury that ‘life without the
possibility of parole’ means ‘what it says,’ the court effectively told the jury that
defendant would be ineligible for parole if the jury chose that sentence.” (Id. at p.
438.) In the present case, we find no error in the trial court’s similar response.
Defendant also claims error from the trial court’s failure to directly address
the question of appeals. In the present case, defendant points out that while his
death judgment was automatically appealed, a sentence of life imprisonment
without parole after having pleaded guilty to first degree murder and special
circumstances would likely not have resulted in an appeal. He argues that the jury
should have been so informed, so that it would not feel as though the death
sentence needed to be imposed in order to prevent defendant from escaping life
imprisonment by a successful appeal. But even with a guilty plea, defendant could
still appeal his murder conviction after obtaining a certificate of probable cause.
(§ 1237.5.) It is inappropriate for the jury to speculate about what may occur on
appeal, and the trial court was correct not to address that question directly.
52
17. Juror Misconduct
Shortly after the jury rendered its verdict, it was discovered that several
pages copied from a Bible had been brought into the jury room. Defendant
eventually moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct related to the use of
those biblical passages during deliberations. After a hearing during which several
jurors were called as witnesses, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant
contends on appeal that the trial court erred, and that such jury misconduct
violated defendant’s rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the federal Constitution.
a. Facts
While cleaning out the room in which jury deliberations had taken place, a
court staff member found several pages copied from a Bible in a juror’s notebook,
although the staff person did not note which juror’s notebook they had come from.
The biblical passages consisted of several verses from First Corinthians and
Romans. The trial court eventually granted defendant’s motion to obtain juror
address and phone information. After an investigation, counsel filed a motion for
a new trial on grounds of jury misconduct. The motion was supported by
declarations from two jurors. Juror S.M. indicated that the initial poll showed
jurors to be 9 to 3 in favor of death and shortly thereafter 10 to 2 in favor of death.
One of the jurors initially not voting for death, K. Y., “was very emotional and
appeared to be having a hard time making a decision.”
A male juror suggested that “the Scriptures may make her feel at ease with
a decision.” The juror, who later was identified as T.F., at one point read portions
of the Bible aloud. H.B., who was the other juror who did not vote in favor of
death during the first day of deliberations, stated in a declaration that T.F. was
using Scripture to “comfort” K.Y., and H.B. specifically remembered him reciting
53
the portion of First Corinthians about “killing the flesh to save the soul,” found in
First Corinthians, chapter 5, verse 5.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which Jurors T.F. and K.Y.
testified. T.F. testified that he was prompted to copy biblical verses, possibly
during the lunch break, on the first day and to read them because K.Y. said
something to the effect that “doesn’t the Bible say you are not supposed to judge.”
He had read from First Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 1-3, and Romans, chapter 13,
verses 1 through 4, possibly 5. He denied reading from First Corinthians chapter
5. He did not recall if there was discussion about the biblical passages after they
were read or further discussion about the Bible. The next day, the jury reached its
verdict.
K.Y. testified that she recalled that certain biblical verses were read, but
that she did not request they be read. She could not recall anything about the
content of those verses. K.Y. and T.F. both testified that when she explained her
reason to decide to vote for death the following day, there was no reference to the
Bible or religion.
The People subsequently filed a memorandum of points and authorities
opposing the new trial motion, which was also supported by a declaration from
H.B. The declaration made clear that immediately after the Bible reading, H.B.
had stated words to the effect that religion should play no part in the decision, and
that the jurors had to consider man’s law not God’s law in deciding this case.
Juror C.R. also submitted a declaration confirming that H.B. had made the above
statement, and that religion was not discussed after the biblical passages had been
read. Juror B.H. stated in a declaration that a vote taken after the reading later that
afternoon was still 10 to 2.
54
Taking Jurors H.C.’s and T.F.’s testimony together, and taking portions that
were underlined by hand in the original court exhibit, the following passages were
either read, in the jury room, or underlined by a juror:
“1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have
his father’s wife.
“2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath
done this deed might be taken away from among you.
“3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged
already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
“4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,
and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
“5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (First Corinthians, ch. 5,
italics in printed edition; hand underlining in original court exhibit.)
“1 DARE any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the
unjust, and not before the saints?
“2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
“3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that
pertain to this life?” (First Corinthians, ch. 6, verses 1-3.)
“1 LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God.
“2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
55
“3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then
be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the
same:
“4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which
is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for his is the minister of
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
“5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for
conscience sake.
“6 For this cause pay ye tribute also: For they are God’s ministers,
attending continually upon this very thing.” (Romans, ch. 13, italics in original,
underlining in court exhibit.)
After T.F. read the Bible verses, he handed them to another juror, whom he
believed “could have been” K.Y.
The trial court found as a matter of fact that no discussions took place about
the biblical verses after they were read by T.F. The court found that it was unclear
from the testimony who underlined the biblical verses. The court concluded that
First Corinthians, chapter 5 had not been read aloud. The court further concluded
that, based on the content of the biblical passages, a layperson would not read
them to dictate that the penalty decision should be made according to religious law
rather than secular law, and therefore concluded that there was no substantial
likelihood that these passages influenced jurors. The trial court accordingly
denied the new trial motion.
b. Principles of Law and Application to the Present Case
i. Misconduct
“It is misconduct for a juror to consider material [citation] extraneous to the
record. [Citations.] Such conduct creates a presumption of prejudice that may be
56
rebutted by a showing that no prejudice actually occurred.” (People v. Mincey
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 467.)
This court has held that reading aloud from the Bible or circulating bibilical
passages during deliberations is misconduct. (See People v. Danks (2004) 32
Cal.4th 269, 308 (Danks); People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 466-467.) The
Attorney General concedes that bringing biblical passages into the jury room and
reading them aloud during deliberation constitutes misconduct.
ii. Prejudice
“[W]hen misconduct involves the receipt of information from extraneous
sources, the effect of such receipt is judged by a review of the entire record, and
may be found to be nonprejudicial.” (In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 653.)
A court’s inquiry into whether extraneous material influenced the jury
verdict is limited by Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a), which states:
“Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence
may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events
occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to
have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the
effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in
influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental
processes by which it was determined.”
When misconduct is found, there is a presumption of prejudice that “ ‘ “ ‘
may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not
exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine
whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party
[resulting from the misconduct]. . . .’ ” ’ ” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p.
653, italics omitted.)
57
Speaking in reference to the introduction of extraneous material to jurors,
we explained: “The verdict will be set aside only if there appears a substantial
likelihood of juror bias. Such bias can appear in two different ways. First, we will
find bias if the extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and
substantially likely to have influenced the juror. [Citations.] Second, we look to
the nature of the misconduct and the surrounding circumstances to determine
whether it is substantially likely the juror was actually biased against the
defendant. [Citation.] The judgment must be set aside if the court finds prejudice
under either test.” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653, italics omitted.)
In assessing whether prejudice occurred here, we look to the recent case of
Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th 269. There, a new trial motion was filed alleging juror
misconduct. The declarations filed in support thereof attested to misconduct by
two jurors. After the first day of penalty deliberations on Friday, Jurors K.A. and
B.P. independently spoke to their pastors over the weekend in ways the defendant
contended were improper. (Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 297-301.) That
Monday, K.A. brought pages from the Book of Numbers into the jury room and
passed them around to other jurors stating that the passage had given her
comfort.10
10 That biblical passage stated in part: “ ‘If anyone with malice aforethought
shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in
hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death;
he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death, when he
meets him . . . . [¶] But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or
throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on
him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did
not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of
blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused
of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to
which he fled.’ ” (Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 298, fn. 10.)
58
This court held that K.A. had committed misconduct, but that it was not
prejudicial. The court concluded the biblical verses K.A. circulated were not
inherently prejudicial, based largely on the strength of the underlying penalty
phase evidence. (Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 305.) The court also concluded
the sharing of biblical verses did not result in actual bias. “Juror K.A. ‘merely
shared [her] personal view and did not purport to validate it as truth or impose
[her] view on others.’ [Citation.] Indeed, there is no evidence that after the copy
circulated the passages were even discussed, other than perhaps one juror’s
comment that God did not have a role in the jury’s decision.” (Danks, supra, 32
Cal.4th at p. 308.)
It is true that the strength of the aggravating evidence against defendant in
the present case may not have been comparable to the evidence against Danks, a
remorseless multiple murderer who “strongly implied he would continue to be
violent in a controlled setting, and apparently threatened the jury.” (Danks, supra,
32 Cal.4th at p. 305.) Nonetheless, the biblical verses read in this case from
Romans, chapter 12 and First Corinthians, chapter 6, unlike the verse from the
Book of Numbers in Danks, did not propound an alternative set of rules or
standards about when the death penalty should be imposed, but merely counseled
deference to governmental authority and affirmed the validity of sitting in
judgment of one’s fellow human beings according to the law. Although we do not
hold that the reading of such verses can never be prejudicial, we believe that in the
present context jurors would understand the verses as a response to a particular
juror’s doubts about whether the Bible authorized her to sit in judgment, not as a
means of advancing a religiously based argument in favor of the death penalty for
defendant. We therefore conclude that the biblical verses were not “inherently and
substantially likely to have influenced” a juror. (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th
at p. 653.)
59
Furthermore, H.B.’s remark after the bible reading that jurors were not to
consider such verses in arriving at a verdict reinforced the limited manner in
which the biblical verses were used. The fact that the jurors did not discuss the
verses is an indication that they took H.B.’s admonition to heart, and weighs
against a finding of prejudice. (See Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 308.) And the
fact that a vote taken that afternoon, after the biblical verses were read, showed the
same 10 to 2 split among jurors, tends to undercut defendant’s contention that the
reading was the decisive event in changing K.Y.’s mind. Nor is there any
indication that the reader of the verses, T.F., was animated by bias against the
defendant. Thus, we conclude from “the nature of the misconduct and the
surrounding circumstances” that it was not “substantially likely” that any juror
was “actually biased against the defendant” as a result of the reading. (In re
Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th 653.)
Defendant
cites
People v. Harlan (Colo. 2005) 109 P.3d 616 (Harlan) in
support of his position. The defendant in Harlan had been sentenced to death for
the kidnapping, rape and murder of one woman and the shooting of another
woman. (Id. at p. 619.) The trial court eventually granted the defendant’s motion
to vacate the verdict on grounds of jury misconduct. The trial court found: “(1)
one or more jurors brought a Bible, a Bible index, and hand-written notes
containing the location of biblical passages into the jury room to share with
another juror during deliberations in the penalty phase of defendant’s trial; (2)
these extraneous materials contained a passage commanding the death penalty for
murderers and another instructing obedience to civil authorities; and (3) these
passages were pointed out by at least one juror to another juror before the jury
reached its unanimous verdict imposing the death sentence.” (Id. at pp. 619-620.)
Two of the biblical passages identified as shared with other jurors were the eye-
for-an-eye passage from Leviticus 24:20-21, and the passage from Romans 13:1
60
read in the present case: “ ‘[l]et every soul be subject to the governing authorities
for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are
appointed by God.’ ” (Id. at p. 622.)
The Colorado Supreme Court held that such jury misconduct would be
considered prejudicial if there was “a reasonable possibility that the extraneous
information influenced the verdict to the detriment of the defendant.” (Harlan,
supra, 109 P.3d. at p. 625.) In arriving at its conclusion that the sharing of the
biblical passages was prejudicial, the court considered six factors: (1) that the
biblical passages were directly related to the ultimate issue of the case, i.e., the
sentence of life or death; (2) that the biblical passages would be considered
authoritative by typical jurors; (3) that the information was shared by others in the
jury room; (4) that the information was considered before the jury reached its
verdict; (5) that there was a reasonable possibility that both the Leviticus and
Romans passages would influence a typical juror to vote in favor of death. (Id. at
pp. 630-631.) As to this last point, the court stated: “The Romans text instructs
human beings to obey the civil government. Here, the State of Colorado was
seeking the death penalty. If the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict of
death, the trial court would have been required to impose a life sentence without
the possibility of parole. Drawn from an array of typical jurors in Colorado, at
least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative
passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted
for a life sentence.” (Id. at p. 631.)
Although Harlan does provide some support for defendant’s position, we
are not persuaded by it. First, the particular context in which the biblical readings
occurred in this case in response to a juror query about biblical views on judgment
was not present in Harlan. Second, the jury in Harlan heard an eye-for-an-eye
passage that, as discussed above, has a greater potential for prejudice than the
61
passages read here. Finally, as noted above, the Colorado Supreme Court has
adopted a “reasonably possible” standard for determining whether jury misconduct
resulted in prejudice at the penalty phase of a capital trial. (Harlan, supra, 109
P.3d at p. 625.) We have adopted a higher “reasonably probable” prejudice
standard for jury misconduct, including misconduct at the penalty phase of a
capital trial, whereby the extraneous material to which jurors are exposed must be
inherently likely to prejudice a juror, or there must be facts from which it can be
concluded that there was substantial likelihood of actual bias. (In re Carpenter,
supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653.) As discussed above, on the record before us defendant
does not meet that standard.
We therefore hold that the jury misconduct in this case was not prejudicial.
18. Trial Court’s Consideration of Probation Report Prior to the
Ruling on the Section 190.4 Motion.
The trial court read defendant’s probation report prior to ruling on the
automatic motion to modify the penalty pursuant to section 190.4 and defendant
claims prejudicial error in violation of his statutory and due process rights. As we
have stated: “In ruling on an application for modification of the verdict, the trial
court may only rely on evidence that was before the jury. [Citation.] Therefore,
the better procedure is to rule on the application for modification before reading
the probation report.” (People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 526.) But
reading the probation report before ruling on the section 190.4 motion is not
prejudicial error when “nothing in the record suggests the court considered or
relied on the probation report . . . when ruling on the application for modification.”
(Ibid.)
In the present case there is no suggestion the trial court considered or relied
upon the probation report in making its ruling. On the contrary, when the
prosecution referred to material in the report while arguing the section 190.4
62
motion, the trial court sustained the defense’s objection, stating that he could not
“consider the probation report in reviewing this matter.” The court also alluded
vaguely to “other convictions” of defendant while explaining this ruling on the
section 190.4 motion, and defendant contends those convictions were ones that
were only set forth in the probation report. Whether or not that is the case, the
trial court made clear that it was not going to find those convictions to be factors
in aggravation because they did not involve violence. We conclude there was no
prejudice resulting from the trial court’s prior reading of the probation report.
19. Constitutional Challenges to the Death Penalty Statute
Defendant challenges a number of California’s death penalty provisions as
unconstitutional. Defendant contends that the failure to require written findings
from the jury regarding aggravating factors violates his right to meaningful
appellate review. We have consistently rejected this claim. (People v. Avila,
supra, 38 Cal.4th 491, 614-615; People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 730.)
He contends that the jury should have been required to find all aggravating factors
beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing the death penalty. We have held that
the jury need not “ ‘find beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating
circumstance is proved (except for other crimes)’ ” (People v. Avila, supra, 38
Cal.4th at p. 614). Defendant argues we should reconsider our position, based on
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, and Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S.
584. “[W]e repeatedly have held that neither Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530
U.S. 466 nor Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 affects California’s death
penalty law . . . .” (People v. Morrison, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 731.)
Defendant contends that jurors are constitutionally required to unanimously
agree on which factor they find in aggravation. We have rejected this argument.
(People v. Morrison, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 730-731.) The United States
63
Supreme Court case, Richardson v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 813, 815-816,
which defendant uses to support this argument, is not on point. Richardson
involved sentencing factors for defendants convicted of the federal drug crime of
continuing criminal enterprise. 11 (Richardson, at p. 816.) The court held that a
jury must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some
continuing series of violations, but also about which specific violations make up
that continuing series. (Id. at p. 824.) Richardson has no application to
California’s death penalty determination, which involves not a jury finding of guilt
but a weighing of numerous factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence. Nor does
Ring v. Arizona alter our conclusion on the unanimity issue. (People v. Morrison,
supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 730-731.)
Defendant contends that the lack of intercase proportionality review for
death penalty cases is unconstitutional. This court has repeatedly held that
proportionality review in such circumstances is not required. (People v. Anderson
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 602; see Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 50-51.)
Defendant contends that the use of the adjective “extreme” in section 190.3,
factor (g)12 is unconstitutionally vague and bars evidence of duress that was less
than extreme. We have rejected defendant’s contention. Such terms have
11 A continuing criminal enterprise occurs when a person “(1) . . . violates any
provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter the punishment for
which is a felony, and [¶] (2) such violation is a part of a continuing series of
violations of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter — [¶] (A) which are
undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect
to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, and
[¶] (B) from which such person obtains substantial income or resources.” (21
U.S.C. § 848 (c)).
12 Section 190.3, factor (g) has the jury consider “[w]hether or not defendant
acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another
person.”
64
“commonsense meanings which the jury may be expected to apply” and are not
impermissibly vague. (People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 189.) Moreover,
factor (k) permits the jury to consider less extreme forms of duress in mitigation.
(People v. Bacigalupo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 457, 469.)
Defendant
asserts
that
California’s
death penalty statute does not narrow
the class of murderers selected for death. As we have held, “California’s death
penalty law sufficiently narrows the class of death-eligible defendants.” (People
v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 237.)
Defendant
contends
that broad prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether
to seek the death penalty violates the equal protection clause and is
unconstitutional. This court has recognized the legitimacy of prosecutorial
discretion unless there is a “ ‘persuasive showing to the contrary.’ ” (People v.
Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 506.) Defendant makes no such showing in this
case.
20. Cumulative Error
Defendant
contends
various penalty phase errors are, taken together,
prejudicial and require reversal of the death sentence. Finding no individual
prejudicial error, we also conclude there is no cumulative prejudice.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORENO, J.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD,
J.
BAXTER,
J.
WERDEGAR,
J.
CHIN,
J.
CORRIGAN,
J.
65
CONCURRING OPINION BY CORRIGAN, J.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment, but express caution regarding
the jury selection discussion.
The majority assumes, without deciding, that Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)
545 U.S. 231, compels a comparative analysis of the cold record on review of a
Wheeler/Batson challenge. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 27.) I agree that such an
assumption is prudent here. I write separately to voice concern that a cold-record
review is a particularly questionable method for achieving the important goal that
jury selection be untainted by group bias.
There are a great many legitimate factors that an advocate may properly
consider in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Many of these are subtle
nuances including attitude, tone of voice, facial expression, and the like. These
nuances are seldom captured by the written record. Further, an advocate may be
willing to accept a juror who shares some characteristics with an excused juror
because of other life experiences or views that make the accepted juror less
problematic from the advocate’s perspective.
Jury selection is, and should be, a highly individualized process. Juror by
juror consideration encourages just the opposite of group bias.
CORRIGAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BAXTER, J.
CHIN, J.
1
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion People v. Williams
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal XXX
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S056391
Date Filed: December 28, 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court: Superior
County: Kern
Judge: Roger D. Randall
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Charles M. Bonneau, Jr., under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Stephen
G. Herndon and Craig S. Meyers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Charles M. Bonneau, Jr.
331 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 444-8828
Craig S. Meyers
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
9196) 324-5280
2
Opinion Information
| Date: | Docket Number: |
| Thu, 12/28/2006 | S056391 |
Parties
| 1 | The People (Respondent) Represented by Attorney General - Sacramento Office Craig S. Meyers, Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA |
| 2 | Williams, Bob Russell (Appellant) San Quentin State Prison Represented by Charles M. Bonneau Attorney At Law 331 "J" Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA |
| Disposition | |
| Dec 28 2006 | Opinion: Affirmed |
| Dockets | |
| Sep 20 1996 | Judgment of death |
| Sep 30 1996 | Filed certified copy of Judgment of Death Rendered 9-20-96. |
| Oct 4 1996 | Application for Extension of Time filed By Court Reporters Harcourt and Baumruk to Complete R.T. |
| Oct 7 1996 | Extension of Time application Granted To Court Reporters To 12-9-96 To Complete R.T. |
| Jan 12 2001 | Filed: Request by counsel for dual representation appointment |
| Jan 12 2001 | Filed: Request by inmate for dual representation |
| Jan 17 2001 | Counsel appointment order filed appointing Charles M. Bonneau to represent appellant for both the direct appeal and related state habeas corpus/executive clemency proceedings. |
| Jan 26 2001 | Received: notice from Superior Court -- record mailed to applt counsel's on 1/24/2001. |
| Feb 14 2001 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Mar 19 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Bonneau. |
| Mar 28 2001 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Mar 29 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed By applt. to request corr. of the record. (1st request) |
| Apr 6 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 6/28/2001 as to applt. to request corr. of the record. |
| May 17 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Jun 29 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed to request record correction (2nd request) |
| Jul 5 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted to applt to 8-28-2001 to request correction of the record. |
| Aug 29 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Aug 29 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed By applt. to request corr. of the record. (3rd request) |
| Aug 31 2001 | Filed: Suppl. "proof of service by mail" of request for extension of time to request corr. of the record. |
| Sep 6 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 10/29/2001 to applt. to request corr. of the record. |
| Sep 17 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Oct 29 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed by applt. to request corr. of the record. (4th request) |
| Nov 1 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 12/28/2001 to applt. to request corr. of the record. No further extensions of time are contemplated. |
| Nov 16 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Dec 17 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Bonneau. |
| Dec 31 2001 | Received copy of appellant's record correction motion copy of applt's motion to correct and augment the record on appeal and for transfer of sealed records, and for settlement of the record. |
| Jan 11 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Bonneau. |
| Jan 14 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Jan 24 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Mar 13 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| May 13 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| May 21 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Jun 12 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Jun 12 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Jul 11 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Aug 8 2002 | Change of Address filed for: Appellant's counsel, Charles M. Bonneau. |
| Aug 16 2002 | Filed: Supplemental proof of service by mail of change of address. |
| Sep 9 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Sep 19 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Nov 12 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Nov 27 2002 | Record on appeal filed Clerk's transcript 16 volumes (3691 pp.) and reporter's transcript 42 volumes (3485 pp.) including material under seal. Clerk's transcript includes 1870 pp. of juror questionnaires. |
| Nov 27 2002 | Appellant's opening brief letter sent, due: January 6, 2003. |
| Dec 9 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Dec 26 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Jan 8 2003 | Motion to augment AA record filed by appellant. |
| Jan 8 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (1st request) |
| Jan 10 2003 | Extension of time granted to 3-7-2003 to file AOB. |
| Jan 13 2003 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Feb 3 2003 | Received letter from: atty Bonneau, dated 1-31-2003, withdrawing appellant's motion to augment the record, filed on 1-8-2003. |
| Feb 19 2003 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Mar 6 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (2nd request) |
| Mar 6 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Mar 11 2003 | Extension of time granted to 5/6/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. |
| May 5 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| May 5 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (3rd request) |
| May 6 2003 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| May 7 2003 | Filed: Supplement to extension of time request. |
| May 8 2003 | Extension of time granted to 7/7/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. |
| Jul 3 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Jul 3 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (4th request) |
| Jul 8 2003 | Extension of time granted to 9/5/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. |
| Sep 3 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Sep 3 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (5th request) |
| Sep 9 2003 | Extension of time granted to 11/4/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. After that date, no further extension is contemplated. Extension is granted based upon counsel Charles M. Bonneau's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 10/30/2003. |
| Nov 3 2003 | Appellant's opening brief filed (275 pp.) *** FILING ORDERED STRICKEN ON FEB. 24, 2004 *** |
| Nov 3 2003 | Motion for access to sealed record filed appellant's "Motion to Unseal the Record." |
| Nov 14 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Nov 14 2003 | Filed: Declaration of attorney Bonneau regarding progress payment (confidential) |
| Nov 19 2003 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Nov 20 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (1st request) |
| Nov 25 2003 | Extension of time granted to 2/2/2004 to file respondent's brief. |
| Dec 31 2003 | Filed: Errata to appellant's opening brief. |
| Jan 2 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Bonneau. |
| Jan 26 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (2nd request) |
| Jan 29 2004 | Filed: Supplemental declaration in support of application for extension of time to file respondent's brief. |
| Feb 5 2004 | Extension of time granted to 4/2/2004 to file respondent's brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling 60 additional days is contemplated. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Meyers's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 6/2/2004. |
| Feb 24 2004 | Motion for access to sealed record granted Appellant's "Motion to Unseal the Record" is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the following extent: The Clerk is directed to unseal the following portions of the record on appeal herein, and to provide copies thereof to appellant and respondent: 1. Second Supplemental Clerk's Transcript, pages 12 through 21. 2. Reporter's Transcript (Jan. 17, 1996) in its entirety, comprising cover through page 15. 3. "Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motion for Continuance," executed by Dominic P. Eyherabide on December 3, 1995, comprising pages 1 through 4; and "Confidential Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motion for Continuance [Sealing Requested]," filed on December 8, 1995, comprising pages 1 through 6, with "Proposed Timetable" on pages 3 through 6. 4. Reporter's Transcript (Apr. 3 & 4, 1996) in its entirety, comprising cover through page 6. 5. Reporter's Transcript, Volume IV (May 2, 1996), in its entirety, comprising cover through page 8. In all other respects, the motion is denied. On the court's own motion, the Clerk is directed to strike the filing of appellant's opening brief. Appellant in turn is directed to serve and file a new opening brief that does not disclose any information contained in any sealed portion of the record on appeal (see appellant's opening brief, p. 83), on or before March 5, 2004. Appellant is further directed to take all steps necessary and appropriate to cure the disclosure of such information in his original opening brief on or before March 5, 2004. |
| Feb 27 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Mar 4 2004 | Received: Letter from appellant, dated 3/4/2004, advising the court that appellant's opening brief has been corrected and re-served pursuant to the court's order of 2/24/2004. |
| Mar 4 2004 | Appellant's opening brief filed (78,220 words - 275 pp.) *** filed pursuant to 2-24-2004 order *** |
| Mar 26 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (3rd request) |
| Apr 1 2004 | Extension of time granted to 6/1/2004 to file respondent's brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 60 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Craig Meyer's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 8/2/2004. |
| May 25 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (4th request) |
| May 28 2004 | Extension of time granted to 8/2/2004 to file respondent's brief. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Craig Meyer's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 8/2/2004. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Jul 6 2004 | Motion for access to sealed record filed appellant's second motion to unseal the record. |
| Jul 13 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (5th request) |
| Jul 13 2004 | Filed: Supplemental proof of service of appellant's second motion to unseal the record. |
| Jul 21 2004 | Extension of time granted to 9/1/2004 to file the respondent's brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 30 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Carl Carl Meyers's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 10/1/2004. |
| Jul 26 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Aug 25 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (6th request) |
| Aug 31 2004 | Extension of time granted to 10-1-2004 to file respondent's brief. After that date, no further extension is contemplated. Extension granted based upon Deputy AG Craig S. Meyers's representation that he anticipates filing the brief by 10-1-2004. |
| Sep 8 2004 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Sep 15 2004 | Motion for access to sealed record granted Appellant's "Second Motion to Unseal the Record," filed on July 6, 2004, is granted. he clerk is directed to unseal the following document and make it available for public access: "Confidential Declaration in Support of Request for Funds Pursuant to Penal Code 987.9 [Mitigation Specialists Services]," found at pages 67 to 78 of the "Sealed Record Under PC 987.9/First Supplemental Clerk's Transcript on Appeal." The clerk is further directed to provide a copy of the unsealed document to Respondent. |
| Sep 29 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Sep 30 2004 | Respondent's brief filed (45,923 words; 162 pp.) |
| Oct 1 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) (supplemental) |
| Oct 22 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. |
| Oct 26 2004 | Extension of time granted to 12/20/2004 to file appellant's reply brief. |
| Nov 30 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) atty Bonneau. |
| Dec 20 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. (2nd request) |
| Dec 21 2004 | Extension of time granted to 2/21/2005 to file appellant's reply brief. After that date, no further extension will be granted. Extension is granted based upon counsel Charles M. Bonneau's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 2/20/2005. |
| Feb 22 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. (3rd request) |
| Feb 24 2005 | Extension of time granted to 3/24/2005 to file appellant's reply brief. Extension is granted based upon counsel Charles M. Bonneau's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 3/24/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Mar 23 2005 | Appellant's reply brief filed (24,318 words; 111 pages) |
| Mar 29 2005 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| May 9 2005 | Filed: Declaraton of attorney Charles M. Bonneau (confidential). |
| May 31 2005 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Jun 29 2005 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau, Charles |
| Jul 28 2005 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Sep 7 2005 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Sep 19 2005 | Related habeas corpus petition filed (concurrent) No. S137389 |
| Sep 29 2005 | Filed: declaraton of attorney Charles M. Bonneau (confidential). |
| Oct 7 2005 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Feb 8 2006 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Feb 16 2006 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Aug 23 2006 | Oral argument letter sent advising counsel that the court could schedule this case for argument as early as the October calendar, to be held the week of October 2, 2006. The October calendar will be held at a special oral argument session in Santa Barbara, at the superior court, rather than in Los Angeles. The advisement of "focus issues," notification that two counsel are required, and any request for oral argument time in excess of 30 minutes must be submitted to the court within 10 days of the order setting the case for argument. |
| Sep 5 2006 | Case ordered on calendar October 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in Santa Barbara |
| Sep 7 2006 | Request for Extended Media coverage Filed by The California Channel. |
| Sep 7 2006 | Request for Extended Media coverage Granted subject to the conditions set forth un rule 980, California Rules of Court. |
| Sep 8 2006 | Received: atty Bonneau's appearance sheet for oral argument, requesting 45 minutes for argument. |
| Sep 11 2006 | Request for Extended Media coverage Filed Santa Barbara News Press to serve as "pool" photographer. |
| Sep 14 2006 | Filed letter from: attorney Bonneau, dated September 13, 2006 re focus issues for oral argument and request for 45 minutes for argument. |
| Sep 14 2006 | Request for Extended Media coverage Granted subject to the conditions set forth in rule 980, California Rules of Court. |
| Sep 21 2006 | Exhibit(s) lodged Court's 1, 2 and 7 |
| Sep 22 2006 | Received: letter from atty Bonneau, dated September 21, 2006, re additional authorities for oral argument. |
| Sep 25 2006 | Filed letter from: respondent, dated September 15, 2006, re focus issues for oral argument. (faxed copy received on September 15, 2006) |
| Sep 25 2006 | Received: letter from respondent, dated September 22, 2006, re additional authority for oral argument. |
| Sep 28 2006 | Received: letter from atty Bonneau, dated Sept. 26, 2006, withdrawing his citation to Ninth Circuit of Appeals opinion, Field v. Brown. |
| Oct 3 2006 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Oct 11 2006 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Bonneau |
| Dec 28 2006 | Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full Opinion by Moreno, J. ----joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin & Corrigan, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Corrigan, J. ----joined by Baxter & Chin, JJ. |
| Jan 8 2007 | Rehearing petition filed by appellant. (987 words; 8 pp.) |
| Jan 17 2007 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing to March 28, 2007, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whicever occurs first. |
| Jan 23 2007 | Filed: proof of service of appellant's "Letter re Focus Issues, time for Oral Argument." |
| Mar 21 2007 | Rehearing denied The petition for rehearing is DENIED. |
| Mar 21 2007 | Remittitur issued (AA) |
| Mar 29 2007 | Exhibit(s) returned Court's I, II and VII. |
| Mar 29 2007 | Received: acknowledgment of receipt of remittitur. |
| Apr 2 2007 | Order filed (150 day statement) |
| Apr 5 2007 | Received: acknowledgment of receipt of remittitur. |
| Jun 25 2007 | Received: letter from U.S.S.C., dated June 19, 2007; advising cert petn. filed on May 31, 2007; No. 06-11925. |
| Oct 1 2007 | Certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court (No. 06-11925), |
| Briefs | |
| Nov 3 2003 | Appellant's opening brief filed |
| Mar 4 2004 | Appellant's opening brief filed |
| Sep 30 2004 | Respondent's brief filed |
| Mar 23 2005 | Appellant's reply brief filed |
