IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff and Respondent,
ROBERT ALLEN BACON,
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. F-C42606
A jury found defendant Robert Allen Bacon guilty of first degree murder
(Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189)1 and found true the special circumstance allegation that
he intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd.
(a)(15)). The jury found him guilty also of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) and
forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)). Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on
the additional special circumstance allegation that he was previously convicted of
murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)), and the trial court found that he was so convicted.
At defendant‟s penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial
court denied defendant‟s motions for a new trial (§ 1181) and for modification of
the penalty (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and it sentenced him to death. This appeal is
automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
We affirm the judgment.
Deborah Sammons was brutally murdered and her body was placed in the
trunk of her car, which defendant tried to conceal by driving the car into a slough.
The last persons Deborah Sammons saw on the night of her murder were
defendant and her husband, Charles (Charlie) Sammons, from whom she had
recently separated, and who, along with defendant, was charged with her murder.
Defendant and Charlie Sammons both admitted that Charlie had asked defendant
to kill his wife and that each of them had taken part in disposing of the body and
concealing evidence of her murder. But their accounts of the murder itself varied
widely, with each casting the other as the actual killer. The victim‟s blood was
found on the shoes of both men, but physical evidence further linking defendant to
the victim was the presence of his semen in her vagina. Defendant had never met
the victim before the night of the murder.
Defendant and Charlie Sammons were tried separately. Defendant was tried
first, and, at his trial, Charlie Sammons testified for the prosecution.2 The
prosecutor‟s theory was that both defendant and Charlie committed the murder,
and that defendant had also raped and sodomized the victim. The defense theory
was that Charlie was the sole killer because he had the stronger motive due to his
jealousy and anger towards his estranged wife. The defense contended that
defendant‟s sexual acts with the victim before her murder were consensual.
After defendant‟s conviction, the prosecution dismissed the only special-
circumstance allegation (lying in wait) charged against Charlie Sammons, who
then pleaded no contest to first degree murder and received a sentence of 25 years
A. Guilt Phase
1. The prosecution’s case
a. Discovery of the body
Around midnight on October 26, 1995, two California Highway Patrol
officers discovered the body of Deborah Sammons in the trunk of a white Mercury
Sable car that appeared to have been abandoned just off Grizzly Island Road in
Solano County. The officers arrived in response to the call of a local man who
had driven to Grizzly Island that night to fish. The man had first seen the white
car on Grizzly Island Road when it had passed his car at high speed. On reaching
the place on the road where a bridge crosses Montezuma Slough, the man found
the white car at the edge of the slough with its engine running and its lights on. As
recounted below, defendant ultimately confessed to police that he tried to drive the
car into the slough to sink it and conceal the body in the trunk, but the car became
stuck on the dirt embankment.
By running a check of the license plate, the officers determined that the car
was registered to a married couple, Charles and Deborah Sammons. In
preparation for towing and impounding the car, the officers conducted an
inventory search. Using the keys from the ignition, they opened the trunk and
discovered Deborah Sammons‟s body.
b. Investigation leading to the arrests
At the time of her murder, Deborah Sammons had separated from her
husband Charlie and was having a romantic relationship with Bill Peunggate. She
had begun the affair with Peunggate while she was still living with Charlie.
Charlie and Peunggate had come to blows in the summer of 1995 when Charlie
learned of the affair. Deborah told Peunggate that she intended to divorce Charlie.
Deborah and Peunggate had planned to go shopping together on the evening
of October 26 (the day of the murder). In the afternoon, however, Deborah called
Peunggate and told him that, at Charlie‟s request, she was first going to Charlie‟s
house in Vacaville to take care of some bills. Deborah‟s timecard from her
employer showed that she left work at 5:28 p.m. Around midnight, when Deborah
still had not shown up for their planned shopping trip, Peunggate drove to
Charlie‟s house. Charlie answered the door; he appeared to have just taken a
shower. Peunggate used the phone, but neither of the men discussed Deborah‟s
About 6:00 a.m. on October 27, Solano County Sheriff‟s deputies visited
Charlie Sammons at his house to tell him that his wife was dead. Initially he
appeared shocked at the news, but, according to one of the officers, his shock
“lasted not more than a minute,” and he resumed cooking his breakfast. When
asked whether or not he had been involved in the death of his wife, he responded,
“Not quite.” Based on that response, the officers asked for and received Charlie‟s
permission to search his home. On the washing machine in the garage, they
discovered a couple of drops of what appeared to be blood, which tested positive
with Hemastix, a testing chemical. The officers told Charlie to accompany them
to the station for further questioning, and he began to put on a pair of tennis shoes.
Noticing bloodstains on the tennis shoes, one of the officers seized them.
Subsequent DNA testing revealed that the blood was Deborah Sammons‟s.
On October 28, the day after Charlie Sammons was arrested, sheriff‟s
deputies obtained a warrant for and searched his house. In the master bedroom,
they discovered numerous traces of blood, including a smear on the bed frame, a
drop inside the dresser cabinet, a smear on the dresser, and small stains on the
closet door. In the living room, they found small bloodstains on the brickwork in
front of the fireplace. Inside the fireplace, they discovered burnt fabric and the
underwire and clasps of a bra. In the kitchen, they found a single-edged, wood-
handled steak knife in the dishwasher.
After Charlie made statements to investigators implicating defendant,
sheriff‟s deputies obtained a warrant for and searched defendant‟s residence,
where they found and seized a tire iron.
c. Autopsy and sexual assault examination
The victim‟s body was clad in a floral print dress, a short sleeve blouse, and a
half-slip, but no other underclothing. It bore three types of injuries: strangulation,
blunt force, and sharp force. The strangulation injuries consisted of multiple
ligature furrows on the neck and hemorrhaging of the eyes. The blunt force
injuries included a broken nose and lacerations on the eyebrow and the bridge of
the nose. On the face there was a rectangular bruising pattern that, according to
the trial testimony of Dr. Brian Lee Peterson, the pathologist who performed the
autopsy, “matched very nicely the general width and shape” of the tire iron that
had been found in defendant‟s apartment.
The sharp-force injuries included two stab wounds to the face and two stab
wounds to the left side of the chest, one of which went through the lung and into
the abdomen, and the other of which penetrated the heart, injuring the ventricle.
According to Dr. Peterson, the steak knife that was found in the dishwasher at
Charlie Sammons‟s house could have been used to inflict all of the stab wounds.
Dr. Peterson took swabs from the mouth, vagina, and rectum for evidence of
rape, although he found no evidence of trauma to the victim‟s vagina or rectum.
The swabs were tested by a criminalist, who found evidence of spermatozoa on the
vaginal swab. The swabs were also sent to a Department of Justice laboratory in
Berkeley for DNA analysis. The laboratory confirmed the presence of
spermatozoa and performed two rounds of DNA testing on it. The testing
excluded Bill Peunggate (Deborah Sammons‟s boyfriend at the time of the
murder) and Charlie Sammons, but not defendant, as possible sources of the
sperm. DNA analysis of the bloodstain on defendant‟s shoe excluded Charlie
Sammons, Peunggate, and defendant as possible sources, but included the victim.
Elizabeth Ann Cassinos, a sexual assault nurse examiner, performed a
colposcopic examination of the genital and anal areas of the victim‟s body. (A
colposcope is a microscope that magnifies 15 times normal vision.) Cassinos
discovered an abrasion or slight tear at the edge of the vaginal opening. This type
of injury could be consistent with consensual sexual relations. The victim‟s anal
cavity exhibited “more trauma” than the vaginal area. Past the sphincter, the anal
cavity was purple and bruised looking on the right-hand side, which was
consistent with blunt force trauma to the rectum caused by something being forced
in from the outside. Cassinos did not offer an opinion as to whether the condition
of the victim‟s genital and anal areas was the result of consensual or
nonconsensual sexual relations.
d. Charlie Sammons’s testimony
Charlie Sammons testified for the prosecution. At the time, he was also
charged with the murder of Deborah Sammons, and he was in custody awaiting a
separate trial. His attorney had approached the prosecution about Charlie‟s
testifying, but Charlie had made no plea agreements or deals with the prosecution.
Charlie hoped, however, that the prosecution would show him some consideration
after the conclusion of defendant‟s case.
On the day of the murder, Charlie and Deborah Sammons had been separated
for about a month. Charlie was living at the Vacaville house that the couple had
formerly shared. Charlie had been suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS) for
about 17 years, with varying degrees of impairment over that time. When he
testified at defendant‟s trial, Charlie was using a wheelchair, but at the time of the
murder, about three and a half years earlier, he had been able to walk.
Charlie had met defendant through Charlie‟s daughter, who knew
defendant‟s stepmother. On the day of the murder, defendant was helping Charlie
paint the house and had been there for three days, working on the project. During
the first day of painting, Charlie mentioned that he and his wife were separated
because of “sexual problems,” namely, she no longer wanted to have sex with him.
Charlie told defendant, “I‟d like to have her out of the picture.” Defendant replied
that “he could take care of it for a price.” Charlie thought defendant “was joking
around” because defendant was laughing when he said it.
Charlie had called Deborah several times that week, asking her to come to
the house to pay the bills, something she often did even after their separation. She
finally agreed, and Charlie told defendant she was going to come. Defendant
replied that, upon her arrival, he would go to the bedroom to wait, and that, if
Charlie “wanted her taken care of,” he should knock on the door as a signal.
Charlie testified that he did not really know what defendant meant and that he
thought defendant was still joking.
Deborah arrived about 6:00 p.m. on the day of the murder, and for several
hours she and Charlie talked while she paid the bills at the kitchen table. Charlie
asked whether she was coming back, and she responded she did not know, which
was her usual response to this question. When she finished paying the bills,
Deborah went to the bedroom to put away the receipts and the checks. Charlie
then heard a scream “like she [had] seen a mouse.” Because the scream was not
loud, Charlie waited a few minutes, then yelled to ask whether everything was all
right. Hearing no response, he went to the bedroom and saw defendant beating
Deborah. Defendant held her up with one hand around her neck. She was
bleeding from the side of her head and begged Charlie to help her. When Charlie
asked defendant what he was doing, defendant pointed a gun at Charlie and told
him to go back to the kitchen.
Charlie returned to the kitchen and started to go to the phone, but defendant,
who was still in the bedroom, yelled, “I told you not to try to do anything.”
Charlie testified that “it was like [defendant] knew everything I was doing,” and
he said he was too scared to leave the house to seek help. After about five
minutes, Charlie returned to the bedroom to see what was happening. Defendant
was bent over the bed, standing over Deborah, who was bleeding. Charlie did not
know whether she was alive. He saw her bra or panties or pantyhose near the end
of the bed. Defendant again told Charlie to go back to the kitchen, and again he
complied. A few minutes later, defendant called him back to the bedroom.
Deborah was on the bed, dressed, apparently dead. Defendant told Charlie to help
him wrap the body in a tarp, which Charlie obtained from the backyard. After
they had wrapped Deborah‟s body, defendant told Charlie to help him put it in the
trunk of a red car in the garage. Charlie did so, and defendant asked him where
they could dump the body. When Charlie had trouble thinking of a place,
defendant threatened to shoot him. Charlie then thought of Grizzly Island,
because he had previously towed cars from there.
Defendant told Charlie to lead the way. Charlie drove the red car, with
Deborah‟s body in the trunk, and defendant followed in Deborah‟s car, the white
Mercury. When they reached Grizzly Island Road, defendant flashed his lights for
Charlie to stop. Defendant told Charlie to help him put the body in the white car.
They removed the body from the tarp and threw the tarp over the side of a hill.
Defendant then drove the white car, now containing Deborah‟s body, off the side
of a bridge towards the water. Defendant rejoined Charlie, who was waiting in the
red car, and told him, “Let‟s go back and I‟ll clean up the mess.”
On cross-examination, Charlie acknowledged that, around the time of the
murder, he was not confined to a wheelchair. Although Charlie had been
receiving Social Security disability payments, he was doing construction jobs,
such as installing sprinkler systems. He had also constructed a patio cover in his
backyard, a task requiring hammering and sawing.
Charlie also acknowledged that he was jealous and upset about Deborah‟s
affair with Peunggate, and that he had asked people to watch her house and her
place of work to keep track of her activities. During the last period in which
Charlie and Deborah lived in the house, she had refused to have sex with him, and
they slept in different bedrooms. Deborah moved out of the house because she
was tired of refusing his demands for sex, and her refusals had angered him.
e. Defendant’s statements to investigators
Defendant‟s videotaped custodial interview, which occurred around 11:00
a.m. on October 28, 1995, was introduced through the testimony of Solano County
Sheriff‟s Detective Patrick Grate, the interrogating officer. The videotape was
played to the jurors, who were given transcripts that the parties stipulated were
true and accurate, and which contained a few statements that had been
inadvertently deleted from the videotape.
Detective Grate began the interview by informing defendant of his rights
under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and defendant agreed to talk.
Grate asked defendant about his schedule during the last week, and defendant said
he had taken Wednesday and Thursday off from work to help Charlie Sammons
paint his patio. Grate told defendant, “We think Charlie offed his wife,” and asked
defendant whether he knew her. Defendant initially denied ever meeting her.
Grate then told defendant that Charlie had said defendant had helped Charlie move
the body. Grate said that DNA testing was being done, and he urged defendant to
tell his version of what had happened that night. Defendant eventually
acknowledged that Deborah had come to Charlie‟s house on Thursday night at
about 6:00 p.m., and he said, “You‟re gonna find my semen samples in her . . . .
Cause I fucked her.”
Detective Grate told defendant that Charlie had said that defendant had
committed the murder all on his own, for reasons unknown to Charlie. In
response, defendant told this story: Defendant saw Deborah arrive and was
immediately attracted to her. He overheard Deborah and Charlie in the kitchen
discussing their separation. Deborah told Charlie she did not want the house, but
she also did not want other women living there because they would take things
that belonged to her. Charlie then went to the garage, which defendant took as his
“opportunity to check her out.” After some conversation lasting “five minutes at
the most,” inexplicably (“I don‟t know how it happened or why it happened”) and
quickly (“next thing I know”), defendant and Deborah began to have sex. Charlie
did not interrupt them, and, after they had finished engaging in sex (which took
about 10 or 15 minutes), defendant went back outside to continue painting the
About 15 minutes later, Charlie yelled for defendant to come inside. Charlie
had blood on his hands and shirt, and defendant “knew” what had happened.
Defendant went to the bedroom and saw Deborah‟s dead body on the bed. When
asked to describe the condition of the body, defendant said, “I didn‟t want to fuck
her” and “there was blood everywhere.” Based on his prior conversations with
Charlie, defendant assumed Charlie had killed her because they were separating
and “she was gonna take everything.”
Charlie told defendant that if he did not help him move the body, Charlie
would call defendant‟s father and tell him that defendant had just killed Deborah.
Defendant and Charlie then moved the body onto a tarp. Defendant got Deborah‟s
blood on his shoes when he stepped on the tarp. Charlie tossed something in the
fireplace, which might have been rags or a blanket or a sheet. Defendant
eventually admitted that he helped Charlie to burn Deborah‟s underwear and to
clean the bloody sheets.
They put the body in the trunk of the red car, which Charlie drove.
Defendant followed in the white car. At some point, they stopped; Charlie
switched the body into the white car; and defendant tried to drive the car into the
slough, but it got stuck on a big dirt hump. Charlie drove defendant home. At
some point, defendant washed his bloody clothes at Charlie‟s house, which was
how the blood got on the washing machine.
At this point in the interview, Detective Grate left defendant alone in the
room with the videocamera still recording. Defendant engaged in an obscenity-
filled soliloquy in which he cursed Charlie for getting him involved and for
pinning the crime on him. He also wondered aloud why Charlie had killed
Deborah. Detective Grate returned to the interview room and announced that the
district attorney was going to charge defendant with “rape/murder.” Grate
explained that the rape charge was based on the improbability of defendant‟s story
that Deborah had engaged in consensual sex five minutes after meeting him for the
first time. Grate urged defendant to tell him anything more that might clarify what
had happened that night.
Defendant then said that Charlie had asked him to kill Deborah. Defendant
maintained that he never said he would kill her but acknowledged that he believed
Charlie assumed he would. After Deborah arrived, Charlie left the house to go to
the store, saying, on his way out the door, that defendant “knew what had to be
done.” Defendant claimed that he did not realize the significance of Charlie‟s
comment, despite his earlier conversation with Charlie about killing Deborah.
After Charlie left, defendant talked to Deborah for about five minutes. The “next
thing [he] knew,” he was kissing her, and “she didn‟t struggle.” They ended up in
the bedroom, where defendant performed oral sex on her. They engaged in
vaginal intercourse and then in anal intercourse, when she said she did not mind it.
Defendant adhered to the rest of his earlier story that Charlie killed Deborah all on
his own and that defendant played no role beyond helping to dispose of the body
and clean up the evidence.
f. Testimony of jailhouse informant
Martin L‟Esperance testified about statements defendant had made to him
about the murder while they were both prisoners in the Solano County jail.
L‟Esperance had many theft-related convictions and was then serving a sentence
for either petty theft or robbery. Defendant told L‟Esperance he had “stabbed a
lady to death” in “the back room” of her house in Vacaville, had “fucked the bitch
in the ass,” and had made her husband help him get rid of the body. Defendant
also said that murder produced a better “high” than shooting methamphetamine
and that “sex after death” was “better than regular sex.” Defendant did not say
whether his sex acts with the victim occurred before or after her death.
Almost a year after hearing defendant‟s statements, L‟Esperance decided to
go to the authorities with the information because Charlie Sammons was still in
custody and L‟Esperance thought Charlie was being imprisoned for a crime he had
not committed. At the time, L‟Esperance had a case pending, but he had already
entered into a plea agreement for it. He said he neither asked for nor received any
consideration for his pending case when he reported defendant‟s statements.
2. The defense case
Through the testimony of Charlie Sammons‟s relatives and neighbors, the
defense sought to establish that he had been physically capable of killing his wife
and that he was motivated to do so because of his anger over their separation.
Several witnesses testified that although Charlie had MS, he was a healthy
and active person around the time of the murder. Charlotte and David Hedrick
had been neighbors of Charlie and Deborah Sammons for 12 years. They were
upset that Charlie was defrauding the government by drawing Social Security
disability payments for his MS while doing construction jobs. Intending to reveal
this fraud, David Hedrick had taken photographs of Charlie cutting wood with a
power saw and nailing boards while standing on a ladder. Deborah‟s sister,
Lynette Holsey, testified that she saw Charlie digging trenches two feet deep and
20 feet long to install sprinkler systems.
Several witnesses testified about Charlie Sammons‟s jealousy and anger
toward Deborah. Charlotte Hedrick testified that Charlie was jealous and
suspicious of his wife. Lynette Holsey and Sheila Shelley, a family friend,
testified that Charlie had people checking to see whether Deborah was really at
work. Holsey said Charlie told her that, if he could not have Deborah, no one
could. Family friends Cletus June Wilkerson and her husband, Howard
Wilkerson, each testified they heard Charlie arguing with Deborah, and he was so
angry he twice said, “I‟m gonna kill her.”
To counter Dr. Petersen‟s testimony that Deborah‟s facial bruises matched
the tire iron found in defendant‟s dwelling, pathologist Dr. Paul Hermann testified
that, based on Deborah‟s autopsy reports and photographs, her blunt force injuries
could have been inflicted by blows with the barrel of a handgun that belonged to
Charlie Sammons and that had been found in a cabinet under a bathroom sink in
the Sammons‟s house. Dr. Hermann acknowledged that since the handle of the
tire iron was about the same size as the slide on the gun, he could not rule out the
tire iron as the source of the injuries. But he thought it more likely that the gun
had caused the injuries because he would have expected to see more damage to the
bones of the face if the tire iron had been used. Deborah‟s nose was broken, but
the bones of the nose are more fragile than the other bones of the face. As to the
prosecution‟s medical testimony that there were microabrasions to Deborah‟s
vagina, Dr. Hermann stated that these could have been caused by the rubbing of
underwear or sanitary pads.
Charles Morton, a forensic scientist and criminologist, examined Charlie
Sammons‟s handgun for signs of blood. Inside the barrel was a small reddish stain
about two millimeters long. A test by Morton indicated that the stain could be
blood but did not exclude mold or bacteria. Later DNA testing failed to detect any
quantity of human DNA.
DNA analyst Lisa Calandro determined that the DNA of the blood found
under Deborah‟s fingernails matched Deborah‟s DNA but not defendant‟s DNA or
Kathy Allison, one of Charlie Sammons‟s neighbors, testified that on the
evening of the murder, while driving by his house, she saw Charlie out front
talking to an elderly man while Deborah Sammons‟s white car was in the
driveway. This defense was presented to corroborate defendant‟s statement during
the custodial interview that Charlie had left the house at one point, which,
according to defendant, had given defendant and Deborah an opportunity to
engage in consensual sex.
B. Trial on Prior-murder Special-circumstance Allegation
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the prior-murder special-
circumstance allegation, which had been bifurcated from the guilt phase. Based
on the prosecution‟s documentary evidence, the trial court found that on June 17,
1983, defendant had been convicted in Arizona of second degree murder, and that
the prior-murder special-circumstance allegation was therefore true.
C. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution case
a. Defendant’s prior murder in Arizona
The prosecution presented evidence of the facts underlying defendant‟s
Arizona murder conviction. Sheriff‟s deputies from Pima County, Arizona,
testified about the murder of John Noble, who, around noon on October 26, 1982,
was found dead in bushes beside an interstate highway. Noble‟s autopsy revealed
slash wounds to his neck and numerous blunt force injuries to his head and upper
body. (At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the parties stipulated that the cause
of Noble‟s death was “a sharp injury to the right neck that pierced his right
external carotid artery.”) At the scene, investigators found a broken beer bottle
that was covered with blood.
Around 9:20 a.m. that day, a deputy sheriff had stopped and questioned two
hitchhikers at that same location. One was the victim, John Noble; the other was
defendant. Between 10:15 and 10:30 a.m., several drivers on the interstate
reported seeing, at the side of the highway, one man hitting and kicking another
man who was on the ground. When sheriff‟s deputies arrived, they found Noble‟s
dead body and arrested defendant, who was about 100 feet from the body.
Defendant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
At the station, defendant waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, supra,
384 U.S. 436, and spoke to an investigating officer. Defendant did not have many
injuries, but he did have dirt and blood on his person. He also had the murder
victim‟s wallet. Defendant initially denied any involvement with the murder, but
ultimately he confessed that he had fought with Noble. Defendant said he had
been hitchhiking with his dog, who was pregnant. He had met Noble, a fellow
hitchhiker, and drank some alcohol with him. Noble said they might find work in
Phoenix as grooms at a racetrack. Noble lay down for a nap, and defendant left to
catch a ride, but he returned to get the piece of paper from Noble‟s wallet on
which the job address was written. As defendant was preparing to get the wallet,
defendant‟s dog woke Noble, who lashed out and kicked the dog. Defendant
warned Noble about kicking the pregnant dog, but Noble kicked the dog again,
and defendant fought with him.
During the interview, defendant gave several different accounts of the fight.
At one point, he said he hit Noble in the neck and thought he cut Noble‟s neck
because Noble started bleeding and fell down. At another point, however,
defendant said that Noble had cut his neck by falling on the broken beer bottle.
No fingerprints were ultimately recovered from the bottle. But when defendant
was asked whether his fingerprints would be found on it, he said they would
because he had picked up the bottle and thrown it away. Defendant said that he
never intended to steal Noble‟s wallet and that he had merely wanted the job
b. Parole violation
For killing Noble, defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder and
robbery, and he was sentenced to prison. He was paroled in April 1994. On
February 24, 1995, during a parole search of defendant‟s bedroom, his parole
officer found a loaded .25-caliber pistol under defendant‟s pillow. In the drawer
of a table beside the bed, additional ammunition for the gun was found. Defendant
denied the gun was his and said he had no idea how it had gotten there. Defendant
was returned to prison for violating his parole. He was again released on July 24,
1995, after which he failed to report to his parole officer. (According to
defendant‟s police interview, he came to California in August 1995. Deborah
Sammons was murdered on the evening of October 26, 1995.)
2. Defense case
Several of defendant‟s relatives testified about his impoverished and unstable
childhood, and about his abuse at the hands of his stepfather, Bill Garlinghouse.
Defendant‟s mother, Kathleen Scott, was continuously hospitalized between
the ages of six and 12 for a severe heart condition and as a result received little
formal education. When she was 16, defendant‟s mother married Robert Bacon, a
sailor in the United States Navy, and moved with him from Washington State to
California. She became pregnant with defendant as the result of an affair with
another man while her husband was at sea. Robert Bacon realized that the child
was not his, and the couple separated. Defendant‟s mother moved back to
Washington and for a time lived again with her family. She became a prostitute
and was jailed for about six months.
During this time, defendant, then six months old, was placed in foster care
with Julie Joy Waldrop, the sister-in-law of defendant‟s maternal grandmother.
When Waldrop first received him, defendant was a “pitiful” baby. He was
“catatonic,” could not sit up, and had no facial expression. Although defendant
made progress under Waldrop‟s care, defendant‟s mother regained custody of him
after about six months.
Defendant‟s mother then had a series of unstable relationships and eventually
married Bill Garlinghouse, who brought with him three children from previous
relationships. Defendant‟s mother told her sister, Glenna Healy, that Garlinghouse
beat defendant frequently and put cigarettes out on him. She also said that
defendant had told her that Garlinghouse had sodomized him. Healy had observed
bruises on defendant‟s face and arms and a cigarette burn on his arm.
Ruth Garlinghouse, Bill Garlinghouse‟s sister, came to know defendant when
she was about 13 or 14 and defendant was about three or four. She was a
babysitter for her brother‟s family. When Garlinghouse and defendant‟s mother
were dating, he treated defendant well. But after they were married, Garlinghouse
began to pick on defendant and would slap him periodically. By the time
defendant was four or five, Ruth began to notice cigarette burns on him, as well as
on Garlinghouse‟s younger son Billy, who was about the same age. At one point,
defendant looked like he had been “slammed into a wall,” and the whole left side
of his face was cut and severely bruised. On another occasion, when defendant
was about six, Ruth saw Garlinghouse beat defendant severely with a board that
was some 18 inches long, a half-inch thick, and three inches wide.
Bill Garlinghouse‟s daughter, Elizabeth, and Billy also testified about how
their father abused them and defendant while they were growing up in his
household. To inflict beatings, Garlinghouse generally used a belt, but sometimes
he had the victim pick a switch from a tree for him to use. Defendant was
punished more frequently, and often with more force, than the other children.
Garlinghouse sexually abused Elizabeth. He shot and killed many of the family
pets, afterwards forcing the boys to bury them.
Garlinghouse moved the family frequently from town to town. Defendant‟s
mother eventually left Garlinghouse after he hit her in the chest, which caused her
to have a heart attack. While she was hospitalized, Garlinghouse moved out of the
house, taking his children but leaving defendant behind. When defendant was 11
or 12 years old, his mother reunited with her former husband, Robert Bacon.
About a year later, they at last told defendant that Robert Bacon was not his
biological father, which caused defendant to become very angry. Like
Garlinghouse, Robert Bacon moved the family frequently. Defendant eventually
ended up in juvenile institutions.
A. Guilt Phase Issues
1. Exclusion of defense evidence
Sustaining the prosecutor‟s relevancy objection, the trial court excluded a
note, written in defendant‟s handwriting, that contained the victim‟s name, her
work address, and an unidentified telephone number. Defendant asserts the note
was relevant and admissible evidence that would have corroborated his claim of
consensual sex with the victim. He contends that the exclusion of the note
violated state law and his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the federal Constitution.3 As we conclude below, the trial court
did not err in excluding the note.
During cross-examination of the criminalist who helped collect evidence
during the search of Charlie Sammons‟s house, defense counsel asked about some
items, apparently belonging to defendant, that were found in one of the bedrooms
in the house. One item was an athletic bag containing men‟s shaving items and a
Regarding this claim and other claims raised on appeal, defendant contends
the asserted error or misconduct violated several constitutional rights. In many
instances in which defendant raised the issues at trial, however, he failed to
explicitly make some or all of the constitutional arguments he now asserts on
appeal. Unless otherwise indicated, his appellate claims either required no action
by him to preserve them, or they involved application of the same facts or legal
standards defendant asked the trial court to apply, accompanied by a new
argument that the trial error or misconduct had the additional legal consequence of
violating the federal Constitution. “To that extent, defendant has not forfeited his
new constitutional claims on appeal.” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067,
1084, fn. 4.) On the merits, no separate constitutional discussion is required, or
provided, when rejection of a claim that the trial court erred on the issue presented
to that court necessarily leads to rejection of any constitutional theory or
“ „gloss‟ ” raised for the first time here. (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412,
441, fn. 17.)
note on which were written a name, an address, and a phone number. The
prosecution objected to admission of the note for lack of relevance, and the trial
court heard argument on the issue outside the jury‟s presence. Defense counsel
made an offer of proof that the note was found in defendant‟s bag and bore, in
defendant‟s handwriting, the name of the victim, her work address, and a phone
number that was as yet unidentified. Defense counsel argued that the note was
relevant to show that on the night of the murder the victim had voluntarily given
her personal contact information to defendant, which in turn could support the
defense version of events that the victim consented to sexual acts with defendant.
The prosecutor objected that, without further evidence, the mere presence of the
victim‟s name and contact information in defendant‟s handwriting on the note did
not show that she had voluntarily given him the information. The trial court
agreed with the prosecutor‟s objection, observing that an equally reasonable
inference was that Charlie had provided the information when he solicited
defendant to kill his wife. The court left open the possibility, however, that the
defense could seek admission of the note after Charlie Sammons had testified and
was questioned about whether he had given defendant the information in question.
When Charlie Sammons testified, he denied giving defendant any
information about his wife, such as a phone number or an address. The defense
then renewed its request to admit the note, and the trial court held another hearing
outside the presence of the jury. Since the first hearing on the note, the prosecutor
had obtained phone company records, and now made an offer of proof that the
phone number on the note was not linked to the victim. The trial court again
denied the motion to admit the note, explaining that “the defense has not
established a sufficient foundation to conclude, other than by pure speculation,
that the victim is the volunteer source of information on the note.” The court also
explained that, even assuming for the sake of argument the foundational fact that
the victim had been the source of the information on the note, it would be
unreasonable, without an explanation as to why the information was given to
defendant, to infer that the sexual contact between defendant and the victim was
Defendant contends that admission of the note would have supported his
version of events — namely, that the victim consented to their sexual acts —
which would have been helpful to him not only on the sexual assault charges but
also on the murder charge. As defendant puts it, “it would be paradoxical to the
point of absurdity to believe that a man would take the trouble to induce (or
seduce) the consent of a woman he intended to murder immediately afterwards in
any event.” As recounted, the trial court gave two reasons for not admitting the
note: (1) defense counsel had not met his burden, under Evidence Code section
403, subdivision (a)(1), of establishing the foundational fact that the victim had
voluntarily given him the information on the note, and (2) even if that foundational
fact were established, it was not relevant, under Evidence Code section 210, to the
issue of whether defendant and the victim had engaged in consensual sex. We
consider the foundational issue first.
When the relevance of proffered evidence depends on the existence of a
preliminary fact, the proponent of the evidence has the burden of producing
evidence as to the existence of that preliminary fact. (Evid. Code, § 403, subd.
(a)(1).) The proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the trial court finds
sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact.
(Ibid.; see also People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 832 [“the trial court
must determine whether the evidence is sufficient to permit the jury to find the
preliminary fact true by a preponderance of the evidence”].) “The decision
whether the foundational evidence is sufficiently substantial is a matter within the
court‟s discretion.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 466; accord, People
v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1120.)
Here, the preliminary fact for which defendant had the burden of producing
evidence was that murder victim Deborah was the source of the information on the
note. Although some of that information was about Deborah (her name and work
address, but apparently not the telephone number), the defense produced no
evidence adequately supporting an inference that she was the source of the
information. Significantly, the note was in defendant’s handwriting. As the trial
court observed, if the victim had provided the information, one would normally
expect the note to be in her handwriting. In his testimony, Charlie Sammons
denied giving his murdered wife Deborah‟s address or phone number to defendant.
We assume the truthfulness of Charlie‟s testimony on this point for the purposes
of the Evidence Code section 403 analysis. (See Assem. Com. on Judiciary com.,
29B pt. 1 West‟s Ann. Evid. Code, foll. § 402 , pp. 356-357 [trial court does not
resolve conflicts in the evidence submitted on preliminary facts questions
determined under Evid. Code, § 403]; id. at p. 403 [same]; see also 3 Witkin, Cal.
Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Presentation at Trial, § 52, p. 85 [trial court cannot weigh
the evidence and resolve the conflict against admissibility].) But even so
assuming, Charlie‟s testimony was merely compatible with the theory that
Deborah had supplied the information; it did not specifically show that she had
done so. Charlie was not the only possible source of the information. As the trial
court observed, Deborah had recently lived in the house, and defendant (who had
spent several days at the house) could have come across documents there
containing her personal information. The trial court therefore acted within its
discretion in finding defendant‟s showing for this preliminary fact too weak to
meet his burden under Evidence Code section 403.
Because the trial court did not err in excluding the note on the basis of
Evidence Code section 403, we need not evaluate the court‟s alternate rationale for
exclusion, namely, that, even assuming the foundational fact, the note was not
relevant to the issue of consensual sex. (See Evid. Code, § 210 [“ „Relevant
evidence‟ means evidence . . . having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove
any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action”].) In
any event, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court‟s relevancy analysis. As
the court reasoned, even if what had been found in defendant‟s bag was an item
clearly likely to have been volunteered by the murder victim, such as her business
card, it would have strained common sense to conclude that the presence of such
an item indicated an agreement to engage in consensual sex.
Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court erred in
excluding the note, we see no prejudice. Defendant merely speculates that
admitting the note would have helped his defense. Had the note been admitted,
the jury might have considered it as supporting defendant‟s statement that he and
the victim engaged in consensual sex within five minutes of their meeting for the
first time (even though none of defendant‟s various accounts of events described
any such exchange of personal information). But in light of admissions by both
defendant and the murder victim‟s husband, Charlie, that they discussed having
defendant kill Deborah, the jury was more likely to have considered the note as
supporting the prosecution‟s theory that Charlie had given Deborah‟s personal
information to defendant to facilitate a murder for hire. In any event, the possible
exculpatory value of the note was slight when viewed in light of the strong
evidence of defendant‟s guilt, and we therefore conclude that its exclusion was
2. Motion to suppress defendant’s statements
Two days after the murder, defendant was interviewed by a sheriff‟s
detective. (Ante, at pp. 9-12.) Before trial, defendant challenged the admissibility
of a large portion of this interview under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436
(Miranda), arguing that the interrogating officer had failed to honor defendant‟s
request for counsel. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court rejected
defendant‟s claim. Defendant renews his argument on this appeal. As we
conclude below, defendant‟s Miranda rights were not violated. Viewed in
context, his statement (“I think it‟d probably be a good idea for me to get an
attorney”) was an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney, which did not
require the interrogating officer to cease questioning him. (Davis v. United States
(1994) 512 U.S. 452, 459 (Davis).)
Under Miranda and its progeny, “a suspect [may] not be subjected to
custodial interrogation unless he or she knowingly and intelligently has waived the
right to remain silent, to the presence of an attorney, and, if indigent, to appointed
Defendant contends that prejudice from the note‟s exclusion must be
assessed by the standard for federal constitutional error, namely whether the error
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 18, 23-24.) We reject defendant‟s attempt “to inflate garden-variety
evidentiary questions into constitutional ones.” (People v. Boyette (2009) 29
Cal.4th 381, 427.) The proper standard for review of the assumed evidentiary
error here is that for state law error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818,
836 (whether “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [defendant]
would have been reached in the absence of the error”). As defendant
acknowledges, we have held that only evidentiary error amounting to a complete
preclusion of a defense violates a defendant‟s federal constitutional right to
present a defense. (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 427-428.)
counsel.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 992.) If at any point in
the interview the suspect invokes the right to remain silent or the right to counsel,
“the interrogation must cease.” (Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 474; see id. at
pp. 444-445, 473-475, 479.) But, as the high court has stated, an officer is not
required to stop questioning a suspect when “a suspect makes a reference to an
attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal.” (Davis, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 459.) The
suspect “must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that
a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to
be a request for an attorney.” (Ibid.) Davis noted that “when a suspect makes an
ambiguous or equivocal statement it will often be good police practice for the
interviewing officers to clarify whether or not he actually wants an attorney,” but
declined “to adopt a rule requiring officers to ask clarifying questions.” (Id. at
In reviewing a trial court‟s Miranda ruling, we accept the court‟s resolution
of disputed facts and inferences and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by
substantial evidence, and we independently determine, from the undisputed facts
and facts properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was
illegally obtained. (People v. Gonzalez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1111, 1125.) Because
what defendant here said during his police interview is undisputed, we engage in a
de novo review of the legal question of whether the statement at issue was
ambiguous or equivocal.
Defendant contends that on its face his statement (“I think it‟d probably be a
good idea for me to get an attorney”) is sufficiently clear to be understood as a
request for an attorney. Defendant compares his statement to “similar locutions”
that courts in other states and some federal appellate courts have held to be
unambiguous and unequivocal invocations of the right to counsel under Davis. As
defendant acknowledges, however, other state and federal courts have found
similar statements to be ambiguous or equivocal. Because defendant‟s statement
contains several ambiguous qualifying words (“I think,” “probably,” and “it‟d”),
we do not consider defendant‟s statement to be sufficiently clear in and of itself.
(See Davis, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 455 [“ „Maybe I should talk to a lawyer‟ ”];
People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 534 [“ „I think it‟s about time for me to
stop talking‟ ” (italics omitted)].)
Alternatively, defendant contends his statement was sufficiently clear given
the circumstances of his interview. Accordingly, we turn to the details of
defendant‟s questioning. (See Davis, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 459 [admissibility
depends on what “a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would
understand”]; see also People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 131 [Davis
analysis is conducted “in view of the entire record”].) Here defendant‟s reference
to an attorney occurred about 30 minutes into his interview with Detective Grate.
Initially, defendant denied ever meeting the murder victim. But when Grate told
him the investigators were conducting DNA testing, defendant said: “You‟re
gonna find my semen samples in her . . . . Cause, I fucked her.” Defendant
claimed that the sexual acts were consensual, but he gave no further details. Grate
urged defendant to give him more information, asking, “What did he do, man?
What the fuck did Charlie [Sammons] do?” This led to the following exchange:
Defendant: “I don‟t know. I don‟t know. I‟ve been asking myself that same
question since we‟ve been in this room and you told me this. What the fuck did
Charlie do? Oh, my God.”
Grate: “Ain‟t no doubt you‟re in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Defendant: “(Positive response)”
Grate: “With the wrong people, man.”
Defendant: “____. Yeah, I think it‟d probably be a good idea . . .”
Grate: “Well listen, listen.”
Defendant: “. . . for me to get an attorney.”
Grate: “Alright. It‟s up to you.”
Defendant: “____ tell me . . .”
Defendant: “Listen, what?”
Grate: “It‟s up to you if you, you know, if you want an attorney, I mean I‟m,
I‟m giving you the opportunity to talk.”
Defendant: “Well . . .”
Grate: “You know . . . _____”
Defendant: “. . . that‟s what you‟re gonna say. I mean talk to me, okay?”
Defendant: “Talk to me.”
Grate: “Talk to you?”
Defendant: “Talk to me.”
Considering the totality of this exchange, we conclude that defendant‟s
reference to an attorney was equivocal or ambiguous. Defendant‟s “attorney”
reference occurred during a rapid and sometimes confusing series of exchanges
with Detective Grate. We note that defendant‟s phrase, “talk to me,” is open to
two possible interpretations. It could express defendant‟s willingness to talk to
Grate or it could express what defendant thought Grate wanted him to do. This
possible ambiguity is most evident the first time defendant used the phrase
(“That‟s what you‟re gonna say. I mean talk to me, okay?”) and perhaps explains
Grate‟s puzzled response (“Hmm?”). Whatever ambiguity there might be in the
first instance of “talk to me,” however, is dispelled by defendant‟s use of the
phrase two more times, which indicates that defendant was indeed asking Grate to
talk to him, rather than parroting what he thought Grate wanted him to do.
Furthermore, even if we assume for the sake of argument that all instances of “talk
to me” were ambiguous, defendant‟s claim fails, because under Davis, a
defendant‟s invocation of the right to counsel must be clear and unambiguous.
(Davis, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 459.)
As a further alternative argument, defendant contends that, even assuming his
reference to an attorney was ambiguous, Detective Grate went beyond asking for
clarification to actively dissuading defendant from consulting counsel. Defendant
acknowledges that we rejected a similar argument in People v. Stitely, supra, 35
Cal.4th at page 534. There, in response to the defendant‟s ambiguous reference to
the right to silence, the officer stated: “ „It‟s up to you. Nobody ever forces you to
talk. I told you that. I read you all that (untranslatable).‟ ” (Ibid.) Defendant here
contends that Grate‟s comment (“I mean I‟m, I‟m giving you the opportunity to
talk”) is distinguishable from the language we analyzed in Stitely because Grate
implied that consulting an attorney would be a waste of an opportunity to
exonerate himself. But we see no substantial difference between this aspect here
and in Stitely, and consequently we reject defendant‟s claim that he was “badgered
into resuming the interrogation.” (Id. at p. 536.)5
Because there was no violation of defendant‟s Miranda rights, we need not
address his lengthy analysis of how his case was prejudiced by the statements he
made after his asserted invocation of the right to counsel. We note, however, that
defendant‟s argument for prejudice is questionable. As defendant acknowledges,
before his reference to an attorney, defendant had already told Detective Grate that
Defendant also argues that the United States Supreme Court, in Dickerson
v. United States (2000) 530 U.S. 428, impliedly overruled the holding in Davis,
supra, 512 U.S. at page 461, that the federal Constitution does not require the
police to ask clarifying questions in response to an ambiguous reference to
counsel. In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 2250, 2260],
the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed its holding in Davis and extended
it to ambiguous or equivocal invocations of the right to remain silent.
on the night of the murder he had engaged in sex with the victim at the house
where she was killed. Defendant contends that his crude remarks in the
challenged portion of the interview prejudiced his case. But the challenged
portion of the interview also added details that arguably bolstered his exculpatory
claim of consensual sex. (See ante, at pp. 10-12.)
3. Instructions on consciousness of guilt
Over defense objection, the trial court instructed the jury that it could infer
consciousness of guilt from efforts to suppress evidence (CALJIC No. 2.06) and
from the telling of a falsehood (CALJIC No. 2.03). Defendant contends that the
trial court erred in giving these instructions because they are logically circular. He
argues that for the jury to draw inferences of the consciousness of guilt permitted
by these instructions, it would first have to resolve the ultimate question of
whether defendant committed the charged crimes. He also contends that these
instructions are argumentative pinpoint instructions that suggest to the jury an
endorsement of the prosecutor‟s version of the case.
As defendant acknowledges, we have repeatedly rejected similar claims and
upheld the propriety of these and similar consciousness of guilt instructions.
Defendant‟s arguments do not persuade us to reconsider those decisions. (People
v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 125.)
4. “Acquittal first” instruction
Defendant contends that a special instruction on the alternative charge of
being an accessory after the fact to murder was erroneous because it improperly
limited the jury‟s order of deliberations for the charged offenses, thereby
prejudicially affecting the jury‟s consideration of his defense to the murder charge,
which was that he was not involved in the murder but merely helped the victim‟s
husband dispose of her body.
Count 1 of the information alleged murder, and count 4 alleged that
defendant was an accessory to murder. The trial court formulated this special jury
instruction concerning these alternative charges: “The defendant is accused in
Count 1 of having committed the crime of murder and in Count 4 of having
committed the crime of accessory after the fact of murder. The defendant cannot
be convicted as both a principal and as an accessory to the same crime. [¶] In
order to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in Count 4, accessory after
the fact to murder, you must first unanimously find the defendant not guilty of the
crime charged in Count 1, murder of the first degree, and not guilty of the lesser
offense of murder of the second degree. [¶] If you unanimously find the
defendant guilty of murder of the first degree or the lesser offense of murder of the
second degree, you should not render a verdict on Count 4, accessory after the fact
The trial court gave this special instruction immediately after CALJIC No.
8.75, which concerns the so-called “acquittal-first” rule for lesser-included
offenses, which, in defendant‟s case, was second degree murder.6 As the court
As given, CALJIC No. 8.75 read: “If you are not satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of first degree murder as
charged in Count 1, and you unanimously so find, you may convict him of any
lesser crime provided you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty
of the lesser crime. [¶] You‟ll be provided with guilty and not guilty verdict
forms as to Count 1 for the crime of murder in the first degree and lesser crimes
thereto. Murder in the second degree is a lesser crime to that of murder in the first
degree. Thus, you are to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of
murder in the first degree or any lesser crime thereto. [¶] In doing so, you have
discretion to choose the order in which you evaluate each crime and consider the
evidence pertaining to it. You may find it to be productive to consider and reach
tentative conclusions on all charged and lesser crimes before reaching any final
verdicts. [¶] Before you return any final or formal verdicts, you must be guided
by the following: [¶] Number one, if you unanimously find a defendant guilty of
first degree murder as to count 1, your foreperson should sign and date the
(Footnote continued on next page.)
explained to the parties during the discussion of jury instructions, count 4
(accessory after the fact) was an alternative charge to murder, not a lesser included
offense. But the court noted that the jurors would have to apply the same type of
“acquittal-first” concept and procedure to both the lesser included and alternative
charges. Because the same concept applied to both, the trial court treated the
special instruction concerning the alternative charge as a continuation of CALJIC
Under the acquittal-first rule, a trial court may direct the order in which jury
verdicts are returned by requiring an express acquittal on the charged crime before
a verdict may be returned on a lesser included offense. (People v. Fields (1996)
13 Cal.4th 289, 303-304.) Although the jurors must record their findings on the
verdict forms in this order, CALJIC No. 8.75 informs the jurors: “[Y]ou have
discretion to choose the order in which you evaluate each crime and consider the
evidence pertaining to it” and advises that it “may . . . be productive to consider
and reach tentative conclusions on all charged and lesser crimes before reaching
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
corresponding guilty verdict form; [¶] Number two, if you are unable to reach a
unanimous verdict as to the charge in Count 1 of first degree murder, do not sign
any verdict forms as to that count and report your disagreement to the court; [¶]
Number three, the court cannot accept a verdict of guilty of second degree murder
as to Count 1 unless the jury also unanimously finds and returns a signed verdict
form of not guilty as to murder of the first degree in the same count; [¶] If you find
the defendant — number 4, if you find the defendant not guilty of murder in the
first degree as to Count 1, but cannot reach a unanimous agreement as to murder
of the second degree, your foreperson should sign and date the not guilty of
murder in the first degree form and should report your disagreement to the court;
[¶] If — number five, if you unanimously find a defendant not guilty of first
degree murder, but guilty of second degree murder, your foreperson should sign
and date the corresponding verdict forms.”
any final verdicts.” (Italics added.) These advisements are designed to prevent
the jury from applying a strict acquittal-first rule, under which the jury would have
to acquit of the greater offense before even considering lesser included offenses.
(See People v. Kurtzman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 322, 329-331.) Here, CALJIC No.
8.75, as given, included these advisements. Defendant claims, however, that
because the trial court did not repeat them in the special instruction dealing with
the alternative charge, the special instruction was rendered ambiguous and
possibly “misled the jurors to believe that they were not free to order their
substantive deliberations the way they saw useful or proper.”
There was no error in the trial court‟s special instruction. When reviewing an
instructional ambiguity claim, we ask whether the jury was reasonably likely to
have construed the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant‟s rights.
(People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 214.) Here, the trial court
intentionally structured and read CALJIC No. 8.75 together with the special
instruction on the alternative charge. Thus, it was not reasonably likely the jury
would have failed to understand that it had the “discretion to choose the order of
evaluation” for the alternative charge of accessory after the fact to murder.
5. Accomplice testimony instruction
Defense counsel requested a special instruction that was directed at the
testimony of the murder victim‟s husband, Charlie Sammons, as a testifying
accomplice and that quoted a concurring opinion to this court‟s decision in People
v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558 (Guiuan). The trial court refused this special
instruction and gave the standard cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony,
CALJIC No. 3.18, which the court augmented with several sentences suggested in
the special instruction. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to
give the special instruction in its entirety.
The trial court found that, for the purposes of jury instructions, Charlie
Sammons was an accomplice as a matter of law (because he was liable for
prosecution for the same crimes as defendant), and the court noted that it was
therefore required to give a cautionary instruction about the testimony of an
accomplice. The standard cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony,
CALJIC No. 3.18 (6th ed. 1996) (1999 rev.), reflects the language of the majority
opinion in Guiuan, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 569, and states: “To the extent that
an accomplice gives testimony that tends to incriminate the defendant, it should be
viewed with caution. This does not mean, however, that you may arbitrarily
disregard that testimony. You should give that testimony the weight you think it
deserves after examining it with care and caution and in light of all the evidence in
Defense counsel requested that the trial court instead give the cautionary
instruction proposed in one of the concurring opinions to this court‟s decision in
Guiuan, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 576: “ „In deciding whether to believe
testimony given by an accomplice, you should use greater care and caution than
you do when deciding whether to believe testimony given by an ordinary witness.
Because an accomplice is also subject to prosecution for the same offense, an
accomplice‟s testimony may be strongly influenced by the hope or expectation
that the prosecution will reward testimony that supports the prosecution‟s case by
granting the accomplice immunity or leniency. For this reason, you should view
with distrust accomplice testimony that supports the prosecution‟s case. Whether
or not the accomplice testimony supports the prosecution‟s case, you should bear
in mind the accomplice‟s interest in minimizing the seriousness of the crime and
the significance of the accomplice‟s own role in its commission, the fact that the
accomplice‟s participation in the crime may show the accomplice to be an
untrustworthy person, and an accomplice‟s particular ability, because of inside
knowledge about the details of the crime, to construct plausible falsehoods about
it. In giving you this warning about accomplice testimony, I do not mean to
suggest that you must or should disbelieve the accomplice testimony that you
heard at this trial. Rather, you should give the accomplice testimony whatever
weight you decide it deserves after considering all the evidence in the case.‟ ”
(Ibid. (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).) As authority for this instruction, defense
counsel quoted the concurring opinion‟s statement that “[a] cautionary instruction
is more helpful and more effective if it states the reasons why special caution is
warranted.” (Id. at p. 571 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).)
The trial court declined to give the entire special instruction requested by
defense counsel, but it did modify the standard instruction by adding two
sentences, so that the instruction as given to the jury stated: “To the extent that
Charlie Sammons gives testimony that tends to incriminate the defendant, it
should be viewed with caution. You should consider the extent to which his
testimony may have been influenced by the receipt of or expectation of any
benefits in return for his testimony. You should also consider anything that has a
tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony, including
but not limited to any interest he may have in the outcome of the defendant’s trial.
This does not mean, however, that you may arbitrarily disregard that testimony.
You should give that testimony the weight you think it deserves after examining it
with care and caution and in light of all the evidence in this case.”7 (Italics
As this quotation reveals, the trial court substituted Charlie Sammons‟s
name for the word “accomplice.” The court did so to avoid suggesting to the jury
that it should presume that defendant had committed the crime (namely, murder)
to which Sammons would be considered an accomplice for the purposes of jury
instructions. As defendant acknowledges, this use of the name was acceptable to
(Footnote continued on next page.)
Defendant acknowledges that CALJIC No. 3.18, which reflects the majority
opinion in Guiuan, is a correct statement of the law. He argues, however, that
otherwise correct statements of law may require amplification or explanation in
uncommon situations, and that here the standard accomplice instruction required
the amplification of his requested special instruction because Charlie Sammons
testified as a “volunteering accomplice.”
We have previously stated that, in appropriate situations, a trial court may be
required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the
case, but the court need not give a pinpoint instruction that merely duplicates other
instructions. (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th 174, 220.) Here,
defendant‟s proposed special instruction did not pinpoint a specific defense theory
not covered by CALJIC No. 3.18, but merely provided a lengthier and more
detailed expression of the law concerning accomplice testimony. Furthermore, the
trial court‟s additions to CALJIC No. 3.18 adequately addressed defense counsel‟s
concern that the instruction indicate the reasons the jury should view accomplice
testimony with special caution. Because the instruction given was correct and
adequate, the trial court did not err in refusing defendant‟s requested special
6. Circumstantial evidence instruction
The trial court instructed the jury under CALJIC Nos. 2.00 and 2.01, the
standard instructions on circumstantial evidence.8 Defendant contends that the
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
all parties below, and on appeal defendant does not challenge this aspect of the
“Circumstantial evidence is evidence that if found to be true proves a fact
from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. [¶] An
(Footnote continued on next page.)
court erred in giving the instruction, and that the error was prejudicial because it
may have caused the jury to reject as “unreasonable” defendant‟s version of events
— that he had spontaneous consensual sex with the victim minutes after first
meeting her — even though, as he further maintains, his version was supported by
enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution‟s case.
Defendant acknowledges that in People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 943,
we rejected a claim that CALJIC No. 2.01 reduces the prosecutor‟s burden of
proof. (See also People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 295-296.) Defendant
seeks to distinguish this case from Wilson. Unlike in Wilson, where a
circumstantial evidence instruction was required, he argues, here the necessary
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from
another fact or group of facts established by the evidence. [¶] It is not necessary
that facts be proved by direct evidence. They may be proved also by
circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence. Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as
means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. [¶]
However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial
evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only consistent with the theory
that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but cannot be reconciled with any other
rational conclusion. [¶] Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of
circumstances necessary to establish the defendant‟s guilt must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt
may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or
circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. [¶] Also, if the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two
reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant‟s guilt and the
other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the
defendant‟s innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt. [¶]
If on the other hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be
reasonable and the other interpretation appears to you to be unreasonable, you
must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.”
factual basis for instructing the jury under CALJIC No. 2.01 was lacking because
the primary evidence against defendant was direct, not circumstantial. Because
CALJIC No. 2.01 should not have been given, defendant contends, its language
was particularly confusing to the jurors with respect to the prosecutor‟s burden of
proof. As we conclude below, however, there was a sufficient factual basis to give
CALJIC No. 2.01, and defendant‟s claim therefore fails.
“[W]e have consistently held that CALJIC No. 2.01 is not necessary unless
the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to prove its case.”
(People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 582, italics added.) This expression of
the rule concerning CALJIC No. 2.01 was made in the context of assessing error
in instances where CALJIC No. 2.01 was not given. Arguing that the same test
applies to determine error where the instruction was given, defendant notes here
that the most significant prosecution evidence in his case was the testimony of
Charlie Sammons, the murder victim‟s husband, and defendant‟s admission to
Detective Grate, neither of which is considered circumstantial evidence for the
purposes of jury instruction. (See People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 629,
630, overruled on other grounds in People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 257.)
But the prosecution did present important circumstantial evidence, including that
(1) the shape of the bruises on the victim‟s face and the shape of the tire iron
found in defendant‟s apartment were circumstantial evidence that the tire iron was
used to commit the murder; and (2) microabrasions in the victim‟s vagina and
rectum were circumstantial evidence of the rape. (See ante, at pp. 5-6.)
Defendant acknowledges that the prosecution did present this circumstantial
evidence, but he contends that it did not substantially rely upon that evidence.
Rather, he argues, the evidence was “simply subordinate and corroborative” of the
direct evidence of Charlie Sammons‟s testimony and defendant‟s admissions to
We disagree. This physical evidence was a substantial part of the
prosecution case and provided adequate justification for instructing the jury on the
consideration of circumstantial evidence. Because we conclude that CALJIC No.
2.01 was properly given and we reaffirm its general validity under People v.
Wilson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at page 943, we need not address defendant‟s further
arguments that the instruction prejudiced his case.
7. Cumulative prejudice from guilt phase errors
Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the asserted guilt phase
errors requires reversal of his conviction, even if none of the errors was prejudicial
individually. Because we conclude there were no errors at the guilt phase, we
reject defendant‟s claim that any cumulative effect warrants reversal.
8. Lack of verdict on being an accessory to murder charge
As already stated (ante, at p. 30), defendant was charged with murder in
count 1, and with being an accessory to murder in count 4. The trial court
instructed the jury that “defendant cannot be convicted as both a principal and as
an accessory to the same crime.” The verdict forms told the jury to return a
verdict on count 4 only if it found defendant not guilty of both murder of the first
degree and murder of the second degree in count 1. The jury found defendant
guilty in count 1 of murder of the first degree. The jury left the verdict form for
count 4 blank.
Defendant contends that because he could not be convicted both of murder
and being an accessory after the fact to the same murder, if we affirm his
conviction for first degree murder we should also order “an express acquittal on
Count 4.” We do affirm his conviction for first degree murder, but we decline to
order an express acquittal on count 4. Defendant cites no authority indicating
whether or how an appellate court could issue such an order of acquittal.
Moreover, defendant fails to show how he is prejudiced by the lack of such an
acquittal. Defendant was not convicted of count 4. The jury correctly followed its
instructions and did not respond to count 4, precisely because it found defendant
guilty of count 1.9
9. Sufficiency of evidence for prior-murder special circumstance
As noted earlier (ante, at p. 14), defendant waived his right to a jury trial on
the prior-murder special-circumstance allegation, which had been bifurcated from
the guilt phase trial in this case, and he submitted the allegation to a trial by the
court. Based on documentary evidence of defendant‟s convictions for robbery and
for second degree murder in Arizona in 1983, the court found the allegation true.
In particular, the court ruled that defendant‟s Arizona murder conviction supported
the prior-murder special-circumstance allegation because, under section 190.2,
subdivision (a)(2), his Arizona offense would have been punishable as first or
second degree murder in California. Defendant contends this ruling was erroneous
because the elements of second degree murder are different in Arizona and
California. As we explain, defendant‟s Arizona offense would have been
punishable as first degree murder in California, and therefore defendant‟s Arizona
murder conviction properly supported the prior-murder special-circumstance
Defendant filed a pretrial motion to strike his Arizona prior convictions on
the grounds that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that his plea was
not voluntarily entered. In support of that motion, defense counsel attached as
We note that under certain factual circumstances, a defendant can be
convicted as both a principal and an accessory to the same crime. (People v.
Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 668.) We need not and do not reach the issue of
whether that was the case here.
exhibits hundreds of pages of documents from the Arizona proceeding, including
indictments, grand jury transcripts, defendant‟s plea agreement, and transcripts of
defendant‟s guilty plea and sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the motion
to strike, a ruling that defendant does not challenge on this appeal.
The prior-murder special-circumstance allegation, which was based on the
Arizona murder conviction, was bifurcated from the guilt phase of the trial in this
case. (See § 190.1, subds. (a), (b).) Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and
submitted the matter to a court trial. The prosecutor submitted documentary
evidence, including a certified copy of defendant‟s Arizona convictions and copies
of the relevant Arizona criminal statutes. The prosecutor also asked the court to
take judicial notice of certain exhibits to defendant‟s pretrial motion to strike the
prior convictions, including copies of the Arizona plea agreement, court minutes
of the entry of the plea and sentencing, and a transcript of the plea proceeding.
In the Arizona plea proceeding, defense counsel and the prosecutor had
agreed that the grand jury transcript provided a factual basis for the plea, and the
trial court had both the prosecutor and defense counsel summarize the contents of
those transcripts. The facts recounted in the plea proceeding, which defendant
acknowledges in his own briefing, are that defendant, who was hitchhiking with
his dog, met victim John Noble, also a hitchhiker, and they drank alcohol together
by the side of a highway in Arizona. Noble said he was going to try to get a job in
Phoenix, Arizona, mentioned certain information about the job, then went to sleep.
To obtain the job information, defendant decided to take Noble‟s wallet. As he
was doing so, Noble awoke and a struggle ensued in which defendant fought to
keep the wallet, to stop Noble from kicking the dog, to punish Noble for kicking
the dog, or some combination of all three purposes. An artery in Noble‟s neck
was severed and Noble bled to death.
Section 190.2, subdivision (a)(2), states that, for the purpose of defining a
prior murder special circumstance, “an offense committed in another jurisdiction
. . . shall be deemed murder in the first or second degree” if the offense “if
committed in California would be punishable as first or second degree murder.”
Pointing to the elements of Arizona second degree murder, defendant contends
that its “least adjudicated form” includes knowingly causing serious physical
injury that leads to the death of a person.10 Defendant contends this conduct falls
short of the requirements of implied malice (second degree) murder in California,
which is “ „ “an intentional act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous
to life,” ‟ ” and which “ „ “was deliberately performed by a person who knows that
his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard
for life.” ‟ ” (People v. Martinez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 673, 684.)
We need not resolve, however, whether the elements of the least adjudicated
form of Arizona second degree murder constitute implied malice murder in
California. As we conclude below, because defendant pleaded guilty in the
Arizona case not only to murder but to robbing the murder victim, and because the
undisputed facts demonstrate that the robbery and the killing occurred during a
Arizona Revised Statutes, section 13-1104, defines three forms of second
degree murder: “A person commits second degree murder if without
premeditation: [¶] 1. Such person intentionally causes the death of another person
. . . ; or [¶] 2. Knowing that the person’s conduct will cause the death or serious
physical injury, such person causes the death of another person . . . ; or [¶]
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the person
recklessly engages in conduct that creates a grave risk of death and thereby causes
the death of another person . . . .” (Italics added.) Arizona Revised Statutes 13-
105 defines “[s]erious physical injury” as “includ[ing] physical injury that creates
a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement,
serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of
any bodily organ or limb.”
continuous transaction, his Arizona murder would be punishable in California as
first degree murder under the felony-murder rule. (People v. Cavitt (2004) 33
Cal.4th 187, 206-207; §§ 187, 189.)
As defendant acknowledges, under California and Arizona law all of the
elements of robbery are the same, including the intent to deprive permanently. In
California, robbery is defined as “the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
accomplished by means of force or fear.” (§ 211.) Theft and robbery have the
same felonious taking element, which is the intent to steal, or to feloniously
deprive the owner permanently of his or her property. (People v. Montoya (2004)
33 Cal.4th 1031, 1037.) We have held that the intent to deprive permanently is
satisfied by the intent to deprive temporarily but for an unreasonable time so as to
deprive the person of a major portion of the value or enjoyment. (People v. Avery
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 58.) In Arizona, robbery is defined as follows: “A person
commits robbery if in the course of taking any property of another from his person
or immediate presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force
against any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property or to prevent
resistance to such person taking or retaining property.” (Ariz. Rev. Stats. § 13-
1902.) In Arizona, as in California, the felonious taking element of robbery
includes the “intent to deprive” a person of his or her property, which is stated in
the Arizona definition of theft. (State v. Celaya (Ariz. 1983) 660 P.2d 849, 852-
853, quoting Ariz. Rev. Stats., § 13-1802(A)(1).) In Arizona, as in California,
intent to deprive means “to withhold the property interest of another either
permanently or for so long a time period that a substantial portion of its economic
value or usefulness or enjoyment is lost . . . .” (Matter of Appeal in Maricopa
County Juvenile Action (Ariz.Ct.App. 1984) 687 P.2d 412, 414.) The elements of
California robbery for California felony murder are thus established by
defendant‟s guilty plea to the charge of Arizona robbery contained in defendant‟s
In considering a foreign murder conviction under section 190.2, subdivision
(a)(2), we analyze both the elements of the crime of murder under which the
defendant was charged and the facts shown in defendant‟s indictment. (People v.
Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 688.) Both the grand jury indictment and
defendant‟s plea agreement indicate that defendant robbed and killed the victim,
John Noble, on the same day. These facts from the indictment provide the
necessary conditions for California felony murder but are not sufficient to
establish it. What must be further established is that defendant robbed and killed
victim Noble during the course of a continuous transaction. (See People v. Cavitt,
supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 206-207; cf. People v. Ford (1966) 65 Cal.2d 41, 55-57
[felony-murder rule not applicable when the defendant, after committing a
robbery, drove aimlessly around and many hours later shot a police officer],
overruled on other grounds in People v. Satchell (1971) 6 Cal.3d 28, 35-41.) In
order to establish that a continuous transaction occurred here, we need to consider
the circumstances of the crime in the record beyond the mere facts contained in the
indictment. Defendant contends, however, that we must make our analysis solely
on the basis of the general elements of the theory of murder in question, and that
we cannot consider any references to the specific facts and circumstances of the
offense beyond those indicated in the indictment. Whether we may properly
consider such further facts and circumstances in our analysis of a foreign murder
conviction under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(2), is a question we have
previously left open. (People v. Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 688.) We now
conclude that we may properly consider at least the uncontested facts and
circumstances of the offense in the record, which here establish that the robbery
and killing occurred during the course of a continuous transaction, and which
therefore establish that this crime “would be punishable” as first degree felony
murder in California.11 (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2).)
Defendant objects to our concluding that his Arizona prior murder would be
felony murder under California law, because, citing our decision in People v.
Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743, 766-767, and People v. Green (1980) 27
Cal.3d 1, 59-62, defendant contends that “in the description of the underlying
conduct by the prosecutor and defense counsel at the plea hearing, the relation of
the robbery to the homicide was described in a way that renders the homicide
unrelated or co-incidental to the robbery, which, in California, negates a finding of
felony murder.” But both Monterroso and Green concern the robbery-murder
special circumstance, not liability for first degree murder under the felony-murder
rule. Defendant cites no authority that the felony-murder rule is inapplicable when
the murder is “incidental” to the robbery. Indeed, we have recently affirmed that
we have never construed the felony-murder rule to require that the killing advance
or facilitate the felony. (People v. Cavitt, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 198.)
This conclusion is consistent with the approach taken in determining
whether foreign convictions qualify as prior serious felonies under the California
“Three Strikes” law or other enhancements based on prior convictions: “If the
enumeration of the elements of the offense does not resolve the issue, an
examination of the record of the earlier criminal proceeding is required in order to
ascertain whether that record reveals whether the conviction realistically may have
been based on conduct that would not constitute a serious felony under California
law.” (People v. McGee (2006) 38 Cal.4th 682, 706.) We do not reach the issue
of whether or how the contested circumstances of a foreign conviction should be
considered under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(2).
B. Penalty Phase Issues
1. Absence of factor (b) instruction for prior murder
As stated earlier (ante, at pp. 15-16), at defendant‟s penalty phase trial the
prosecutor introduced evidence of two aggravating circumstances: (1) defendant‟s
prior convictions for murder and robbery in Arizona, and (2) defendant‟s
possession of a gun while on parole. As to defendant‟s prior convictions for
murder and robbery, the trial court instructed the jury under section 190.3, factor
(c) (factor (c)) (prior felony conviction) that, before it could consider these
convictions as an aggravating circumstance, it must first be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant had in fact been convicted of those crimes. As to
defendant‟s possession of a firearm while on parole, the trial court instructed the
jury under section 190.3, factor (b) (factor (b)) (prior criminal act involving the
threat of force or violence) that before it could consider this prior conduct as an
aggravating circumstance, it must first be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant had in fact committed the criminal act.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its instructions concerning
defendant‟s Arizona prior murder conviction because the prosecutor used that
conviction not only as evidence of a prior felony conviction under factor (c), but
also as evidence of other violent criminal activity under factor (b). Therefore,
defendant contends, the trial court should have additionally instructed the jury that
before it could consider his prior murder conviction under factor (b), it had to be
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he had in fact committed the violent
conduct underlying that conviction (as distinct from the fact of his conviction).
Defendant further contends that a special instruction the trial court gave
concerning his Arizona prior convictions exacerbated this alleged instructional
error. As we conclude below, however, the trial court‟s instructions were correct.
Furthermore, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there was
instructional error, we discern no prejudice.
The trial court‟s penalty phase instructions on the aggravating circumstances
reflected accommodations to requests by both the defense and the prosecution. In
connection with the trial court‟s instruction on defendant‟s Arizona convictions as
factor (c) prior felony convictions, defense counsel had asked the trial court to
instruct the jury on the elements of robbery and second degree murder under
Arizona law. The prosecutor objected, stating that the proposed instruction might
mislead the jury into concluding that it had to retry defendant for these Arizona
prior crimes. The trial court then said it would instruct the jury on the elements
and definitions of second degree murder and robbery under Arizona law, but
added that it would make clear to the jury that it was not to determine whether or
not defendant was factually guilty of those crimes. The court further stated it
would instruct the jury that it could consider the facts and circumstances
underlying the Arizona convictions in determining what weight to give them as an
The trial court instructed the jury on the Arizona prior convictions as follows:
“Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant,
Robert Allen Bacon, has been convicted of the crimes of murder in the second
degree and robbery prior to the offense of murder in the first degree of which he‟s
been found guilty in this case. [¶] Before you may consider any of the alleged
crimes as an aggravating circumstance in this case, you must first be satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Robert Allen Bacon, was in fact
convicted of the prior crimes. [¶] It is alleged as an aggravating circumstance that
on or about August 17, 1983, the defendant suffered a felony conviction in the
state of Arizona for a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-1104,
second degree murder . . . [and] for a violation of Arizona Revised Statues Section
13-1902, robbery . . . . [¶] You have been instructed on the elements of the
crimes of second degree murder and robbery under Arizona law. The sole purpose
of these instructions is to provide you with a better understanding of the conduct
which constitutes those crimes in Arizona. [¶] While you must first be satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was, in fact, convicted of those prior
crimes before you may consider them as an aggravating circumstance, the People
need only prove in these proceedings that the defendant was convicted of those
crimes. However, to the extent evidence was introduced concerning the
commission of those crimes, you may consider that evidence in determining the
weight to which you believe such circumstance is entitled.”
The court then gave this instruction as to defendant‟s possession of a firearm
while on parole: “Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that
the defendant, Robert A. Bacon, has committed the following criminal act,
possession of a firearm, which involved the threat of force or violence. Before a
juror may consider any criminal act as an aggravating circumstance in this case, a
juror must first be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Robert
A. Bacon, did in fact commit the criminal act. A juror may not consider any
evidence of any other criminal act as an aggravating circumstance. [¶] It is not
necessary for all jurors to agree. If any juror is convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that the criminal act occurred, that juror may consider that act as a fact in
aggravation. If the juror is not so convinced, that juror must not consider that
evidence for any purpose.”
Thereafter, in their closing arguments to the jury, both the prosecutor and
defense counsel discussed the Arizona murder. After concisely reviewing the
testimony of one of the investigating officers who had testified, the prosecutor
argued: “Mr. Bacon is unable to see the world through anyone‟s eyes other than
Mr. Bacon‟s and so he felt justified in beating and taking a broken beer bottle to
the throat of some man because „he hit my dog.‟ ” Later in his argument, the
prosecutor contrasted defendant‟s murder of Deborah Sammons with the Arizona
murder, stating that her murder “was not a spur of the moment killing” like “the
killing in Arizona,” which “was done without premeditation.” The prosecutor
argued that defendant had not learned anything from having spent 11 years in
prison for the Arizona murder, and that, not only did defendant kill again, “he
plotted and planned and premeditatedly killed someone again.”
In his closing argument to the jury, defense counsel argued that the Arizona
prior killing was not premeditated, referring to the part of the definition of
premeditation under Arizona law specifying that “an act is not done with
premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” He
argued that the killing was the result of a fight that started when the victim kicked
defendant‟s dog. He characterized the fight as a “drunken brawl” “involving two
transients on a rural highway in the middle of Arizona, one with a .18
blood/alcohol.” He acknowledged that “it appears . . . that a beer bottle was . . .
involved,” but he argued there was no evidence that defendant “somehow held that
bottle and wielded it in some vicious fashion.”
Defendant‟s argument for prejudicial error in the trial court‟s jury
instructions on factors (b) and (c) is based on these assertions: (1) The Arizona
prior murder conviction was used by the prosecutor not only as factor (c) evidence
pertaining to recidivism, but as factor (b) evidence pertaining to defendant‟s
propensity for violence; (2) the trial court‟s instructions referenced the Arizona
murder only in the instructions for factor (c), improperly omitting it from the
instructions for factor (b); and (3) the trial court‟s special instruction on the
Arizona murder conviction led the jury to believe that finding beyond a reasonable
doubt the fact of the Arizona prior murder conviction (as factor (c) evidence) was
also sufficient to allow it to consider the violent conduct underlying the conviction
(as factor (b) evidence), thereby relieving the jury of having to first determine
beyond a reasonable doubt whether that prior violent conduct had in fact
happened. Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the asserted
instructional errors prejudiced him because “it buffered the jurors from
considering specifically and carefully the actual level of moral aggravation
imported by appellant‟s acts underlying the conviction itself.”
The Attorney General disputes the first of these assertions, arguing that the
prosecutor‟s references to the facts and circumstances underlying the Arizona
murder were used, not to show defendant‟s propensity for violence under factor
(b), but rather to show the absence of the mitigating factor of remorse. We
disagree. The closing arguments of both the prosecution and the defense
described the conduct underlying the Arizona murder, and both therefore raised in
some fashion the issue of violence. As recounted above, the prosecutor also raised
the factor (c) issue of recidivism by arguing that defendant had learned nothing
from his 11 years in prison for the Arizona murder. But we cannot conclude, as
respondent urges, that nothing in the prosecutor‟s remarks implicated factor (b).12
As to defendant‟s second assertion — that the trial court‟s instructions
mentioned the Arizona murder only in relation to factor (c), and not factor (b) —
we agree that the trial court did not list defendant‟s prior convictions in Arizona in
the portion of the instructions pertaining to factor (b) evidence. In its factor (b)
instruction, the trial court specified only defendant‟s gun possession while on
parole. A trial court is under no obligation, however, to specify for the jury the
To be clear, defendant does not argue that the jury should not have been
allowed to consider his Arizona murder under both factors (b) and (c). As we
have held, and as defendant acknowledges, a prior felony conviction involving
violence or threat of violence can be considered for its relevance under both factor
(b) and factor (c). (People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 764.)
violent criminal activity that may be considered. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25
Cal.4th 610, 666.) It is incumbent on defense counsel to point out an omitted
incident and request a more complete instruction on the subject. (Ibid.)
Defendant therefore has forfeited this contention.
As to defendant‟s third assertion — that under the trial court‟s special
instruction on the Arizona prior murder conviction, a finding that defendant had
suffered that conviction would also permit the jury to consider the violent conduct
underlying the conviction without first determining beyond a reasonable doubt
whether that violent conduct had in fact happened — the court‟s special
instruction on the Arizona prior convictions certainly allowed the jury to consider
evidence “introduced concerning the commission of those crimes.” Indeed, most
of the prosecution‟s evidence at the penalty phase pertained to the conduct
underlying the Arizona prior murder conviction, not merely the fact of the
conviction itself. Thus defendant‟s claim turns on whether the trial court had a
duty to instruct the jury that, before it could consider the conduct underlying
defendant‟s Arizona murder conviction in aggravation under factor (b), it had to
find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct had in fact occurred. We have
previously rejected such an argument. (People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932,
1000-1001 (Ashmus), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Yeoman (2003)
31 Cal.4th 93, 117.) In Ashmus, the trial court instructed the jury that it had to
find beyond a reasonable doubt the fact of defendant‟s conviction of the felony of
assault with intent to commit rape, but it did not instruct the jury that it had
additionally to find beyond a reasonable doubt the conduct underlying the
conviction. (Ashmus, supra, at p. 1000.) A reasonable doubt instruction as to the
underlying conduct is not necessary, we held, when the defendant has already been
convicted of the crime in question. (Ibid.) We explained that a reasonable doubt
instruction is required for unadjudicated violent criminal acts because the lack of a
conviction raises reliability concerns, implying that these concerns are not present
with respect to incidents for which there was a prior conviction. (Ibid.)
Ashmus left open the question of “whether a reasonable-doubt instruction
remains necessary when the People seek to prove conduct underlying the
conviction other than the facts necessarily established.” (Ashmus, supra, 54
Cal.3d at p. 1001, fn. 25.) In dicta, Ashmus answered the question in the
affirmative, citing People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 707 (Kaurish), and
People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal.3d 527, 566 (Morales) (disapproved on another
ground in People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459).13 In Kaurish, the
prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant‟s prior conviction for armed
robbery, which included testimony that the defendant had choked the store‟s
proprietor during the robbery. (Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 707.) We held that
the choking incident constituted separate violent criminal activity under factor (b)
that required a reasonable-doubt instruction in addition to the reasonable-doubt
instruction given as to the prior conviction for armed robbery under factor (c).
(Kaurish, supra, at p. 707.) In Morales, similarly, the People introduced evidence
that during a robbery, for which the defendant was convicted, the defendant
committed a separate assault for which he was not charged. (Morales, supra, 48
Cal.3d at pp. 565-566.) We stated that a reasonable-doubt instruction for the
In People v. Williams, supra, 49 Cal.4th 405, 459, we held that a
reasonable-doubt instruction is always required for factor (c) evidence,
disapproving some prior decisions that were inconsistent on that point, including
People v. Morales, supra, 48 Cal.3d 527. Williams is not implicated here because
a reasonable-doubt instruction was given for the factor (c) evidence. As discussed
above, defendant‟s contention is that an additional reasonable-doubt instruction
should have been given for the factor (b) use of factor (c) evidence, an issue we
did not reach in Williams.
conduct “should be given where the penalty phase evidence discloses a crime in
addition to the one of which the defendant was convicted.” (Id. at p. 566.)
In Kaurish and Morales, the assaultive conduct described went beyond the
elements of the crime of robbery for which those defendants had been convicted,
and therefore it was a separate unadjudicated criminal act for which a separate
reasonable-doubt instruction under factor (b) was required. In contrast, in this
case, the conduct the prosecutor described was not “violent criminal activity that
did not result in a conviction” (Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 707) or “a crime in
addition to the one of which the defendant was convicted.” (Morales, supra, 48
Cal.3d at p. 566.) Rather, the conduct described was precisely the basis for
defendant‟s Arizona prior conviction for second degree murder. As recounted
above, defense counsel disputed to some degree the prosecutor‟s description of
defendant‟s conduct, specifically whether defendant intentionally used the broken
bottle as a weapon to slit the victim‟s throat. The disputed conduct, however, was
part of the conduct that formed the basis of the crime of which defendant was
convicted, not some other crime with which he could have been charged but was
not. The trial court therefore was not required to give an additional reasonable-
doubt instruction concerning this conduct as factor (b) evidence.
Finally, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the trial court should
have given an additional reasonable-doubt instruction about the conduct
underlying the Arizona prior murder conviction, we see no prejudice under the
facts here. “[T]he absence of the instruction is not prejudicial when the evidence
of defendant‟s commission of a violent crime is uncontroverted.” (People v.
Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 965, disapproved on another ground in People v.
Williams, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 459.) As mentioned earlier, although the
prosecutor and defense counsel used contrasting moral frameworks to discuss the
Arizona murder in their closing arguments, they substantially agreed on the facts
of the conduct. The prosecutor and defense counsel both characterized the
Arizona murder as a spur-of-the-moment killing that was done without
premeditation. Defense counsel acknowledged that defendant‟s killing of Noble
in Arizona was a violent crime and that a beer bottle was involved in the crime.
The factual dispute was whether defendant intentionally used the beer bottle as a
weapon, or whether, as defense counsel suggested, the cutting was somehow
accidental. Although this factual dispute was not insignificant to the weight of
aggravation a jury might assess for the Arizona prior murder, its significance is
slight when viewed in light of the considerably more brutal manner in which
defendant murdered Deborah Sammons by stab wounds to the face and chest,
blunt force injuries, and strangulation, all of which were clearly intentional acts.
Thus there was no reasonable possibility that, had the jury been instructed
regarding factor (b) with respect to the Arizona prior murder, it would have
accorded it less weight, much less a possibility that the additional instruction
would have influenced the outcome of the penalty phase. (See Kaurish, supra, 52
Cal.3d at p. 708.)
2. Defense counsel’s proposed instruction on Arizona voluntary
The trial court refused defense counsel‟s request for a special instruction on
the elements of manslaughter under Arizona law. Defendant contends the refusal
was erroneous because the proposed instruction was a vital part of his defense at
the penalty phase. As we explain below, the trial court did not err in refusing the
As noted (ante, at p. 46), defense counsel requested and received a jury
instruction on the elements of Arizona second degree murder. Defense counsel
also asked the court to instruct on the definition of voluntary manslaughter under
Arizona law.14 The prosecutor objected that the only reason to instruct on
manslaughter would be to try to convince the jury that defendant should have been
convicted of manslaughter rather than murder, which, the prosecutor argued, was
not the jury‟s task in the penalty phase. The trial court agreed with the prosecutor
and refused the instruction, stating that “no purpose would be served by
instructing the jury on what manslaughter is in Arizona. It‟s not relevant and
would confuse the jurors as to their task with respect to the prior felony
Upon request by the defense or prosecution, a trial court must instruct on the
elements of an unadjudicated crime offered under factor (b) or the elements of the
offense underlying a conviction offered under factor (c). (People v. Adcox (1988)
47 Cal.3d 207, 256; People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 72.) Defendant presents
no authority, nor are we aware of any, that the trial court is ever obligated to
instruct on lesser offenses requested by trial counsel at the penalty phase. (People
v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 867-868.) Defendant contends, however, that
because this requested instruction was vital to his penalty phase defense, the trial
court had no discretion to refuse to give it.
The proposed instruction stated: “In the State of Arizona, manslaughter is a
lesser crime to second degree murder. Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
Section 13-1103(a), a person commits manslaughter by: [¶] (1) Recklessly
causing the death of another person; or [¶] (2) Committing second-degree murder
as defined in Section 13-1104, subsection A, upon a sudden quarrel or heat of
passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim. [¶] Adequate
provocation is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-1104(4) as follows:
[¶] „Adequate provocation‟ means conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive
a reasonable person of self-control.”
In People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th 1, 72-73, we considered whether a trial
court at the penalty phase had a duty to instruct, on its own motion, on a defense to
a crime presented under factor (b). The factor (b) evidence there involved an
assault, and the defendant argued that the trial court had a duty to instruct on the
defense of others as a legal defense to assault. (Cain, supra, at p. 72.) In rejecting
the claim, we concluded that, on the facts presented, even without an instruction
on the legal defense to assault “the jury had before it evidence and argument from
which it could rationally assess the degree of culpability [the] defendant bore in
the prior incident.” (Id. at p. 73.) We further observed that “[t]he proper focus for
consideration of prior violent crimes in the penalty phase is on the facts of the
defendant‟s past actions as they reflect on his character, rather than on the labels to
be assigned the past crimes.” (Ibid.)
Although this case involves the trial court‟s refusal of a requested instruction
rather than the possible existence of a duty to instruct on the court‟s own motion,
the same reasoning applies here. As discussed earlier, defense counsel argued to
the jury that the Arizona killing was the result of a sudden quarrel or heat of
passion provoked by the victim‟s kicking defendant‟s dog. Defense counsel
thereby presented to the jury a manslaughter-type argument in mitigation. As in
People v. Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th at page 73, the jury had before it the evidence
and the argument from which it could rationally assess defendant‟s degree of
culpability for the Arizona prior murder. The legal label, “manslaughter,” was not
vital to this argument. It was therefore within the trial court‟s discretion to refuse
defendant‟s manslaughter instruction and, because the instruction could have
confused the jurors as to their task in the penalty phase, the court‟s refusal was not
an abuse of discretion.
3. Admission of handgun possession evidence under factor (b)
As recounted (ante, at p. 16), at the penalty phase the prosecution presented
evidence that defendant‟s parole officer had found a loaded gun under defendant‟s
pillow during a parole search of his dwelling. Defendant contends that possession
of a gun while under parole supervision is not criminal activity that involves “the
express or implicit threat to use force or violence,” and that the trial court
therefore erred in admitting the evidence under factor (b). As we explain below,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.
During the penalty phase, the prosecution sought to introduce in aggravation,
under factor (b), evidence of defendant‟s possession of a handgun while on parole
in Arizona. The court denied defendant‟s motion to exclude the evidence, stating:
“[L]ooking at the circumstances of the discovery of that weapon, I would conclude
that the location of the weapon, which would render it readily available for use by
a person lying on the bed where apparently it was found, coupled with the
defendant‟s quasi-custodial status as a parolee at the time and the potential
consequences of him being found in possession of that firearm, leads me to the
conclusion that the possession of the weapon involved the implied threat of force
or violence at the time. And therefore, it is admissible pursuant to Penal Code
section 190.3 [factor] (b).”
“Factor (b) of section 190.3 permits the introduction of evidence of „[t]he
presence or absence 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.‟ ” (People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 535.) A trial court‟s
decision to admit, at the penalty phase, evidence of a defendant‟s prior criminal
activity is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Smithey
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 991.) Possession of a firearm is not, in every circumstance,
an act committed with actual or implied force or violence. (People v. Jackson
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1235.) The factual circumstances surrounding the
possession, however, may indicate an implied threat of violence. (Id. at pp. 1235-
1236.) “In a series of cases . . . [citations], we have held that the possession of a
weapon in a custodial setting — where possession of any weapon is illegal —
„involve[s] an implied threat of violence even when there is no evidence defendant
used or displayed it in a provocative or threatening manner.‟ ” (People v.
Michaels, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 535.) “Even in a noncustodial setting, illegal
possession of potentially dangerous weapons may „show  an implied intention to
put the weapons to unlawful use,‟ rendering the evidence admissible pursuant to
section 190.3 factor (b).” (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 777.)
Defendant acknowledges that being under parole supervision is constructive
custody, but contends that constructive custody is not identical for all legal
purposes to actual custody, and that his case is therefore distinguishable from the
cases reviewed in People v. Michaels, supra, 28 Cal.4th 486, 535, involving
possession of a weapon in prison under factor (b). Defendant contends there must
be some other “extraordinary circumstance,” such as the nature or number of the
weapons possessed, to qualify the possession of a firearm by a parolee as factor
(b) evidence. Defendant argues that “the nature of the weapon itself, a simple
handgun, did not suggest implied violence.”
The question of factor (b) admissibility does not turn on whether constructive
custody is identical for all legal purposes to actual custody. Rather, the question
here is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the circumstances
of defendant‟s gun possession while under constructive custody involved a threat
of violence under factor (b). We see no abuse of discretion. The criminal
character of defendant‟s possession of a loaded firearm, at a time when he was
subject to parole searches in Arizona, is sufficient to permit a jury to view his
possession as an implied threat of violence. (See People v. Michaels, supra, 28
Cal.4th at p. 536.) We reject defendant‟s contention that some additional
extraordinary circumstance was required. Defense counsel was free to argue to
the jury (and indeed did argue) that defendant possessed the gun for the purpose of
self-protection, not for criminal violence. (See ibid.) The trial court did not err in
admitting the evidence.
4. Penalty phase prejudice from failure to suppress defendant’s
As recounted (ante, at pp. 24-25), during the guilt phase defendant
challenged the admissibility of a portion of his interview with Detective Grate as
being in violation of Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436. Defendant contends that the
admission of his statements to Detective Grate prejudiced him at the penalty
phase. Specifically, he complains that the prosecution cited the statements during
closing argument as showing he lacked compassion because, when asked to
describe the condition of the victim‟s body immediately after the murder,
defendant answered, “I didn‟t want to fuck her.” Defendant argues that, if we
conclude that his statements were admitted in violation of Miranda, we should
find prejudice from the prosecutor‟s use of the statements at the penalty phase.
Because, as we have explained, defendant‟s statements were not admitted in
violation of Miranda, this claim fails.
5. Penalty phase prejudice from guilt phase exclusion of defense
As explained (ante, at pp. 19-21), defendant challenged, at the guilt phase of
his capital trial, the court‟s exclusion of a note in defendant‟s handwriting
containing the victim‟s name, her work address, and an unidentified phone
number. Defendant argues that if we concluded the trial court erred in excluding
the note, then we should conclude that the exclusion of the note prejudiced
defendant at the penalty phase. Defendant contends that the exclusion of the note
harmed him at the penalty phase because, had the note been admitted, it would
have strengthened defendant‟s appeal to lingering doubt by providing “significant
corroboration of the otherwise problematic claim by appellant that he had
consensual relations with Mrs. Sammons.” Because we have concluded that the
note was properly excluded, this claim fails.
6. Penalty phase prejudice from guilt phase denial of instruction
As noted (ante, at pp. 32-34), at the guilt phase, the trial court refused to give
defendant‟s special cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony, which quoted
from a concurring opinion in Guiuan, supra, 18 Cal.4th 558, 576. Defendant
argues that if we conclude that the refusal was erroneous, then we should find the
lack of the instruction prejudicial at the penalty phase on the issue of lingering
doubt. As we have explained, the special instruction was properly refused.
Furthermore, to have the jury consider the special instruction at the penalty phase,
defense counsel was required to request it as part of the penalty phase instructions,
which counsel did not do. Furthermore, although defense counsel at the penalty
phase made various arguments to the jury as to why it should entertain a lingering
doubt, he never argued that the jurors should disbelieve Charlie Sammons (the
murder victim‟s husband) because he was an accomplice. Defendant‟s claim is
therefore both forfeited and meritless.
7. Challenges to the death penalty law
Defendant raises various challenges to California‟s death penalty law. We
have in the past rejected similar claims, and we do so again here, as follows:
The homicide and death penalty statutes adequately narrow the class of
murders eligible for the death penalty; this scheme is not overbroad because it
permits capital exposure for many first degree murders, including unintentional
felony murder. (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th 412, 483.)
The jury need not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating
circumstances outweigh the mitigating ones or that the death penalty is
appropriate. (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 409.)
The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution do not
require that a jury unanimously find the existence of aggravating factors. (People
v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 926.)
The absence of intercase proportionality review does not violate the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (People v. Cook
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 1334, 1368; People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 48; see also
Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 50-51 [federal Const. does not require
intercase proportionality review].)
8. Cumulative effect of penalty phase errors
Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the asserted penalty phase
errors requires reversal of his conviction, even if none of the errors is prejudicial
individually. Because we conclude there were no errors in the penalty phase, we
reject defendant‟s claim that any cumulative effect warrants reversal.
The judgment is affirmed.
GEORGE, C. J.
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion People v. Bacon
Original Appeal XXX
Opinion No. S079179
Date Filed: October 21, 2010
Judge: R. Michael Smith
Mark D. Greenberg, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A.
Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias, Glenn R. Pruden and Catherine McBrien, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Mark D. Greenberg
484 Lake Park Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
|Thu, 10/21/2010||50 Cal. 4th 1082, 240 P.3d 204, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723||S079179||Automatic Appeal||submitted/opinion due|
|1||The People (Respondent)|
Represented by Attorney General - San Francisco Office
Catherine McBrien, Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA
|2||Bacon, Robert Allen (Appellant)|
San Quentin State Prison
Represented by Mark D. Greenberg
Attorney at Law
484 Lake Park Avenue, PMB 429
|Opinion||Justice Joyce L. Kennard|
|May 20 1999||Judgment of death|
|May 25 1999||Filed certified copy of Judgment of Death Rendered|
|May 25 1999||Penal Code sections 190.6 et seq. apply to this case|
|Aug 13 1999||Record certified for completeness|
|Nov 12 2003||Filed:|
appellant's application for appointment of counsel (IFP form).
|Nov 13 2003||Counsel appointment order filed|
appointing Mark D. Greenberg to represent appellant for the direct appeal.
|Dec 4 2003||Received:|
notice from superior court that record was sent to appellant's counsel on 12-1-2003.
|Dec 8 2003||Date trial court delivered record to appellant's counsel|
(3,928 pp. record) (see Calif. Rules of Court, rule 39.50(c); the date of delivery is the date of mailing plus five days.) Note: record was transmitted on 12-1-2003.
|Dec 8 2003||Appellant's opening brief letter sent, due:|
July 6, 2004.
|Jan 16 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Feb 10 2004||Received:|
a copy of People's exhibit no. 30 and copy of transcript of People's exhibit no. 29 from superior court..
|Mar 23 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Jun 4 2004||Received copy of appellant's record correction motion|
Motion to correct the record (6 pp.); Request for additional record (9 pp.); Application for permission to prepare a settled statement (7 pp.); and Petition to allow full public access to probation report (7 pp.)
|Jun 11 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Jun 23 2004||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Jul 21 2004||Filed:|
appellant's application for relief from default for failure to file a timely request for extension of time to file the AOB.
|Jul 29 2004||Order filed|
Appellant's application for relief from default for failure to file a timely motion for extension of time to file AOB is granted. Good cause appearing, appellant's application for an extension of time in which to file AOB is granted to and including 9-7-2004.
|Jul 29 2004||Filed:|
appellant's request for extension of time to file AOB. (1st request)
|Aug 31 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Sep 7 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (2nd request)
|Sep 7 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 11/8/2004 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Sep 8 2004||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Oct 27 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (3rd request)
|Oct 27 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 1/7/2005 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Jan 6 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (4th request)
|Jan 6 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 3/8/2005 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Jan 7 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Mar 4 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Mar 4 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file AOB. (5th request)
|Mar 7 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 5-9-2005 to file AOB.
|Mar 9 2005||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Mar 11 2005||Note:|
record arrived from superior court.
|Apr 15 2005||Note:|
record returned to superior court.
|May 9 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (6th request)
|May 9 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|May 11 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 7/8/2005 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Jul 7 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file AOB. (7th request)
|Jul 8 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 9-6-2005 to file AOB.
|Jul 8 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Jul 11 2005||Note:|
record arrived from superior court.
|Sep 2 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Sep 2 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (8th request)
|Sep 9 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 11/7/2005 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Oct 28 2005||Record on appeal filed|
Clerk's transcript 24 volumes (6,412 pages) and Report's transcript 48 volumes (3,450 pages), including material under seal; ASCII cds. Clerk's transcript includes 4,475 pp of juror questionnaires.
|Oct 28 2005||Letter sent to:|
counsel advising that record on appeal, certified for accuracy, was filed this date.
|Nov 7 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (9th request)
|Nov 7 2005||Filed:|
Supplemental declaration in support of application for extension of time to file appellant's opening brief.
|Nov 8 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Nov 14 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 1-6-2006 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Nov 16 2005||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Jan 5 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (10th request)
|Jan 10 2006||Extension of time granted|
to 3/7/2006 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Mar 6 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (11th request)
|Mar 7 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Mar 9 2006||Extension of time granted|
to April 6, 2006 to file appellant's opening brief.
|Apr 5 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (12th request)
|Apr 12 2006||Appellant's opening brief filed|
(55,617 words; 184 pp.)
|Apr 12 2006||Respondent's brief letter sent; due:|
August 10, 2006. (see California Rules of Court, rule 36(c)(1)(B))
|Apr 17 2006||Filed:|
Third Supplemental Clerks Transcript - 18 pages
|Apr 26 2006||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Jul 26 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (1st request)
|Jul 28 2006||Extension of time granted|
to October 10, 2006 to file responden'ts brief.
|Oct 3 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (2nd request)
|Oct 10 2006||Extension of time granted|
to December 4, 2006 to file the respondent's brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 60 additional days is contemplated. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Catherine McBrien's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by February 2, 2007.
|Nov 29 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (3rd request)
|Dec 1 2006||Extension of time granted|
to February 2, 2007 to file the respondent's brief. After that date, no further extension will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Catherine McBrien's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by February 2, 2007.
|Feb 1 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (4th request)
|Feb 7 2007||Extension of time granted|
to February 16, 2007 to file the respondent's brief. After that date, no further extension will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Catherine McBrien's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by February 16, 2007.
|Feb 16 2007||Respondent's brief filed|
(49350 words; 158 pp.)
|Feb 16 2007||Note:|
appellant's reply brief due: April 17, 2007. (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.630(c)(1)(D))
|Mar 29 2007||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Apr 2 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (1st request)
|Apr 6 2007||Extension of time granted|
to June 18, 2007 to file appellant's reply brief.
|Jun 15 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (2nd request)
|Jun 15 2007||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Jun 21 2007||Filed:|
Supplemental declaration in support of request for extension of time to file appellant's opening brief.
|Jun 26 2007||Extension of time granted|
to August 20, 2007 to file the appellant's reply brief. After that date, only two further extensions totaling about 120 additional days are contemplated. Extension is granted based upon counsel Mark D. Greenberg's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by December 2007.
|Aug 17 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file reply brief. (3rd request)
|Aug 17 2007||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from attorney Greenberg.
|Aug 21 2007||Extension of time granted|
Good cause appearing, and based upon counsel Mark Greenberg's representation that he anticipates filing the reply brief by December 2007, counsel's request for an extension of time in which to file that brief is granted to October 19, 2007. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 60 additional days is contemplated.
|Oct 16 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (4th request)
|Oct 16 2007||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Oct 17 2007||Received:|
Amended proof of service in support of request for an extension of time to file ARB.
|Oct 22 2007||Extension of time granted|
Good cause appearing, and based upon counsel Mark D. Greenberg's representation that he anticipates filing the appellant's reply brief by January 31, 2008, counsel's request for an extension of time in which to file that brief is granted to December 18, 2007. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 44 additional days is contemplated.
|Dec 18 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (5th request)
|Dec 18 2007||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from atty Greenberg.
|Dec 26 2007||Extension of time granted|
Good cause appearing, and based upon counsel Mark D. Greenberg's representation that he anticipates filing the appellant's reply brief by February 16, 2008, counsel's request for an extension of time in which to file that brief is granted to February 19, 2008. After that date, no further extension is contemplated.
|Feb 19 2008||Appellant's reply brief filed|
(25,373 words; 79 pp.)
|Feb 19 2008||Motion filed (AA)|
to file appellant's supplemental opening brief.
|Feb 22 2008||Order filed|
Appellant's "Request for Permission to File Supplemental Opening Brief" is granted. The supplemental respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before March 19, 2008. Appellant's supplemental reply brief will be due within 20 days of the filing of the supplemental respondent's brief.
|Feb 22 2008||Supplemental brief filed|
appellant's supplemental opening brief. (1,614 words; 8 pp.)
|Mar 5 2008||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Mar 17 2008||Request for extension of time filed|
to file supplemental respondent's brief (1st request)
|Mar 19 2008||Extension of time granted|
Good cause appearing, and based upon Deputy Attorney General Catherine A. McBrien's representation that she anticipates filing the supplemental reply brief by March 27, 2008, counsel's request for an extension of time in which to file that brief is granted to March 27, 2008. After that date, no further extension is contemplated.
|Mar 27 2008||Supplemental brief filed|
Supplemental respondent's brief. (2,767 words; 11 pp.)
|Apr 10 2008||Note:|
|Apr 14 2008||Application to file over-length brief filed|
by appellant "Request to file a supplemental reply brief in excess of 2,800 words"
|Apr 16 2008||Order filed|
Appellant's "Request To File A Supplemental Reply Brief In Excess Of 2,800 Words" is granted.
|Apr 16 2008||Supplemental brief filed|
"Supplemental Reply Brief" (4,134 words; 15 pp.)
|Nov 3 2009||Exhibit(s) lodged|
from superior court: people's exhibits 29, 30, and 31.
|Jun 23 2010||Oral argument letter sent|
advising counsel that the court could schedule this case for argument as early as the September calendar, to be held the week of September 6, 2010, in San Francisco. 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.
|Aug 2 2010||Case ordered on calendar|
To be argued Wednesday, September 8, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in San Francisco.
|Aug 6 2010||Received:|
appearance sheet from Mark D. Greenberg, Attorney at Law, indicating 45 minutes for oral argument for appellant.
|Aug 6 2010||Filed:|
appellant's focus issues letter, dated August 5, 2010.
|Aug 12 2010||Received:|
appearance sheet from Deputy Attorney General Catherine McBrien, indicating 30 minutes for oral argument for respondent.
|Sep 8 2010||Cause argued and submitted|
|Oct 13 2010||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Oct 20 2010||Notice of forthcoming opinion posted|
To be filed on Thursday, October 21, 2010 @10 a.m.
|Apr 12 2006||Appellant's opening brief filed|
|Feb 16 2007||Respondent's brief filed|
|Feb 19 2008||Appellant's reply brief filed|
appellants-opening-brief.pdf (2187448 bytes) - Appellants Opening Brief
appellants-reply-brief.pdf (3225566 bytes) - Appellants Reply Brief
appellants-supplemental-opening-brief.pdf (119149 bytes) - Appellants Supplemental Opening Brief
appellants-supplemental-reply-brief.pdf (168796 bytes) - Appellants Supplemental Reply Brief
respondents-brief.pdf (1829606 bytes) - Respondent's Brief
respondents-supplemental-brief.pdf (206106 bytes) - Respondent's Supplemental Brief
|Dec 1, 2010|
Annotated by eespinosa
At approximately midnight on October 26, 1995, two California Police officers discovered a body in the truck of an abandoned white Mercury Sable registered to a married couple, Charlie and Deborah Sammons. The body was identified as Deborah Sammons.
Prior Murder in Arizona
Robert Allen Bacon was charged with first degree murder and forcible rape and forcible sodomy. He was charged with a special circumstances allegation that he intentionally killed his victim by lying in wait. The jury found him guilty of all charges. He was also charged with an additional special circumstances allegation of prior murder. He waived his right to a jury trial on this charge and was convicted by the court.
The defense raised a number of issues on both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. One of the main elements of the defense case at the appeals stage was the argument that the trial court erred when it excluded defense evidence. The crucial piece of this evidence was a note in defendant’s handwriting with the victim’s name, her work address and a phone number written on it. Defendant claimed that this supported his claim that the victim had consensual sex with him. The trial court rejected this claim, saying that defendant had not provided any proof beyond speculation that the information on the note was voluntarily given to him by the victim.
Although this case was automatically appealed to the California Supreme Court because defendant received the death penalty, the Court extensively discussed legal issues in its opinion. The defense made fifteen motions regarding issues that arose at both the guilt and penalty stages of the trial. However, despite some creative legal arguments by the defense, the Supreme Court ruled for the prosecution on every issue and motion and refused to overturn any of the decisions made by the trial court.