IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff and Respondent,
JACK WAYNE FRIEND,
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. 81254 A
On January 12, 1989, an Alameda County jury found defendant Jack Wayne
Friend guilty of first degree murder and robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, 211.)1
The jury also found true that he had inflicted great bodily injury in connection
with the robbery and that he had personally used a knife in committing both
crimes. (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b).) The jury was unable to reach a
verdict on the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation. (§ 190.2, subd.
(A)(17)(i).) After a retrial on the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation,
a new jury found it true on March 20, 1992. After the penalty phase, the jury
returned a verdict of death on April 17, 1992. The trial court denied defendant‟s
motion for new trial and modification of the penalty (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and
sentenced him to death. This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11;
§ 1239, subd. (b).) We will affirm the judgment in full.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Around midnight on Labor Day 1984, Herbert Pierucci, a bartender at the
Golden West Bar in downtown Oakland, was fatally stabbed and cash was stolen
from the bar. Defendant acknowledged at trial that he and an acquaintance, Gene
Hollowhornbear, were the last two people in the bar that night, and the last ones to
see the victim before the robbery.
The prosecution‟s main witness was Kevin Kelley, who had been with
defendant and Hollowhornbear at the bar earlier in the evening but who left before
the crime. Kelley testified that he saw defendant and Hollowhornbear emerge
from the bar with defendant holding a knife, and that defendant later admitted to
Kelley that he had committed the robbery murder. Another prosecution witness,
Thomas Moody, also testified that defendant had admitted he committed the
The defense contested Kelley‟s credibility, especially whether Kelley could
have seen defendant from the distance at which he claimed to be standing.
Defendant took the stand in his own defense and testified that Hollowhornbear and
the victim had gotten into a fight, that defendant had tried to break it up, but
Hollowhornbear pulled a knife and fatally stabbed the victim.
A. First Trial: Guilt Phase
1. The Prosecution’s Case
a. Discovery of the Victim and Nature of the Wounds
The victim, Herbert Pierucci, worked as a bartender at the Golden West Bar,
which was located at 368 12th Street between Franklin and Webster Streets in
downtown Oakland. Around midnight on Labor Day, September 3, 1984, two
acquaintances of the victim discovered him alone, lying in a pool of blood at the
back of the bar. The front cash register was open, the cash drawer was pulled out,
and its contents, later estimated to be approximately $300, were missing. Four
bottles of liquor were also gone.
A police officer summoned to the scene found the victim semiconscious with
a four-inch gash to his neck and a three-inch gash to his wrist. Asked what had
happened, Pierucci answered that he had been stabbed. The officer asked, “how
many people were there?” and Pierucci held up two fingers in response.
Pierucci was taken to the hospital, where emergency surgery was performed,
but he died four days later from loss of blood. The surgeon who operated on
Pierucci testified that, in one of the front wounds, the knife completely severed the
sternomastoid muscle in the neck and came to rest on the cervical spine. Three
wounds at the back of the neck completely severed the trapezius muscle. The
surgeon testified that a fair amount of pressure was required to inflict such
wounds. The pathologist testified that there were at least six distinct sharp cutting
wounds to the victim‟s neck and defensive wounds to his left arm and right and
b. Testimony of Kevin Kelley
On September 3, 1984, Kevin Kelley, defendant, and Thomas Moody were
among a group of homeless alcoholics who were allowed by owner Dina
Mladinich to stay at the Thomas Janitorial Supply Warehouse (the warehouse) on
the corner of Ninth and Alice Streets.2 About 10 p.m., Kelley and defendant left
the warehouse and headed towards downtown Oakland. Defendant wore a black
nylon “security-type” jacket, blue jeans, and black shoes. They went in search of
2 Other testimony established that about seven people were staying in the
warehouse around the time of the murder.
Mladinich‟s van, which Moody had borrowed. On the way, they met Gene
Hollowhornbear, who was carrying a black nylon gym bag that was half full of
clothes.3 The group discussed getting a six-pack of beer at a nearby convenience
store, the Oasis, but defendant did not want to go there because he had gotten into
trouble there in the past. Instead, they decided to go to the Golden West Bar,
where they initially sat in the front section of the bar and defendant ordered a
round of beers.
The group moved to the rear of the bar and played pool. Kelley and
Hollowhornbear drank two more beers, and defendant drank three more. Kelley
went to the bathroom and defendant followed him in. Defendant proposed to
Kelley that they rob the bar by hitting the bartender with a bottle, stating it would
be an easy three-on-one robbery. Defendant also mentioned using one of
defendant‟s knives for the robbery. Earlier at the bar, Kelley had noticed that
defendant had two knife sheaths on the back of his belt. Kelley recognized one of
the knives as a Buck-type knife that Kelley had sold to defendant about three
weeks earlier.4 Defendant‟s other knife looked like a Benchmark-type knife and
had the word “raccoon” engraved on it.5
Kelley said he did not want to have anything to do with a robbery. He went
back to finish his drink, and then headed out of the bar. As Kelley was stepping
out the door, defendant again tried to convince him to join in the robbery, but
Kelley reiterated that he wanted no part in it. At the time Kelley left the bar,
defendant and Hollowhornbear were the only ones there besides the bartender.
3 Other testimony established that Hollowhornbear was an Native American
alcoholic who often lived on the streets.
4 Other testimony established that this was actually a Case brand knife; Buck and
Case brand knives are essentially the same.
5 Other testimony established that defendant‟s nickname was Raccoon.
After leaving, Kelley walked eastbound on 12th Street towards Webster
Street. He crossed this intersection and continued east on the south side of 12th
Street towards the next cross-street, which was Harrison. He passed the Cochran
and Celli automobile dealership, and was about three-quarters of the way down
this block of 12th Street between Webster and Harrison when he stopped to look
back. He saw that defendant and Hollowhornbear were on the sidewalk in front of
the Golden West Bar. The street was well-lit by several street lights. Defendant
was holding a shiny object in his hand, which Kelley thought was a knife.
Hollowhornbear was holding his black nylon gym bag. They proceeded to the
nearby corner of 12th and Webster. Defendant wiped the knife on his pants and
on a bag he took from the gutter.6
Kelley started walking towards them, but then decided he wanted to get
away, and turned the corner and began walking down Webster Street toward 13th
Street. After turning right on 13th Street, he reached Harrison Street and crossed a
parking lot. Defendant and Hollowhornbear followed and caught up with him in
the parking lot, where Hollowhornbear handed Kelley a bottle with a pour spout
on it, and asked him to hold it for a second. Kelley held it for a while and then
threw the bottle into some nearby bushes. Kelley noticed that Hollowhornbear‟s
gym bag contained between four and six bottles, some of which had spouts on
them and appeared to be bar bottles. After tossing the bottle, Kelley jogged back
to the warehouse on his own.
Five to 10 minutes after Kelley returned to the warehouse, defendant arrived.
Someone else was using the bathroom sink, so defendant started washing his
6 A police officer searching the scene after the murder found a bag with what
appeared to be blood spots on it approximately 50 to 75 feet from the front door of
the Golden West Bar.
hands in the toilet bowl. Defendant began changing clothes, and asked where his
glove was. Kelley later saw a clear surgical glove lying on the floor near the
toilet.7 The lights were on in the warehouse and Kelley noticed some dark
splotches on defendant‟s jeans, between his waist and his knees, which had not
been there before they went to the Golden West Bar.
Five minutes after defendant, Hollowhornbear also arrived at the warehouse.
Kelley did not notice any stains or splotches on Hollowhornbear. Hollowhornbear
had his black gym bag, which was still full of bottles. He removed approximately
six bottles from the bag, three of which had spouts on them, and began drinking
from one. Defendant told Hollowhornbear to change his clothes, but Kelley never
saw Hollowhornbear change.
After defendant changed his clothes, he said he wanted to get rid of his old
clothes by dumping them in “the deep, deep water.” Defendant made a bundle of
the clothes by tying the arms of the black security-type jacket around them. With
defendant carrying the bundle, defendant and Kelley went outside. Defendant said
he wanted to stash his knife, threw the bundle of clothes to Kelley, and then
departed for five minutes. Defendant returned and retrieved the bundle, and they
went to the estuary. They came to a large restaurant located on the water at Jack
London Square.8 Kelley waited at one corner of the building while defendant
went around the building the other way carrying the bundle. Kelley could not see
where defendant went. Three to five minutes later, defendant returned without the
7 Prior to that evening, defendant had injured his hand and had been wearing a
white wrap bandage, although Kelley could not remember whether defendant wore
it that night at the bar.
8 The prosecutor identified this restaurant, using a street diagram. Kelley agreed to
They went to another restaurant in Jack London Square, the Jack London Inn,
where defendant ordered a round of beers. A man was singing and playing piano
at the bar. Defendant went to the restroom, and Kelley followed a few minutes
later. Kelley used the urinal and saw that defendant was in the stall. Kelley
returned to the bar, but eventually came back to use the restroom a second time.
Although the toilet had overflowed, Defendant was still in the stall and was
counting his money. Kelley saw bills of different denominations, $1‟s and $5‟s, in
the water on the floor. There was also a broken roll of quarters on the floor.
Kelley heard defendant say, “I killed him for a measly hundred and something
dollars.” Defendant said he had left “the big bills” in the black security-type
jacket he had thrown in the estuary.
Defendant gave Kelley some quarters from the broken roll (amounting to
about $7 or $8), which Kelley used to buy a beer. They then went to the restaurant
area to eat, and defendant ordered two steak dinners. Kelley could not eat very
much. After they left the restaurant, they returned in a zigzag manner to the
warehouse. Kelley recalled looking up and seeing a building clock indicating
1:45. While they were walking back, defendant said he had to kill the bartender
because the bartender knew him and defendant didn‟t want any witnesses. When
they returned to the warehouse, Hollowhornbear was still there but left shortly
thereafter. Kelley slept until about 6:00 a.m., and then took BART to his brother‟s
house in Fremont and stayed there. Kelley did not talk again with either defendant
A littler over a month later, on October 15, 1984, police officers took Kelley
from his brother‟s house to the police station for questioning. Kelley agreed to
talk to the police and the district attorney. The Alameda County District
Attorney‟s Office provided Kelley with a place to stay, some food, and $110 a
week in cash for six weeks, from February 14, 1985, to March 31, 1985.
c. Testimony of Thomas Moody
Thomas Moody was a longtime resident of the warehouse, and was living
there, along with defendant and Kelley, on the day of the murder. During the early
evening, Moody had taken Mladinich‟s van to be serviced at the gas station around
the corner. Moody then visited a friend, had something to drink, and returned to
the warehouse around 10:30 p.m., in an inebriated condition. Defendant and
Mladinich were there when he returned. Mladinich yelled at Moody for taking the
van and, about half an hour after that, he went to sleep.
On either the day after the murder, or the day after that, Moody talked to
defendant about the knife that Kelley had sold to defendant. Moody asked
defendant to sell him the knife (an offer that Moody had first raised a week or two
earlier). But defendant now told him that he had gotten rid of the knife.
After the murder, police began coming to the warehouse to investigate. After
these police visits, Moody saw defendant talk to Dennis French, another resident
of the warehouse, and then saw defendant pack up his clothes and leave. About
two weeks later, Moody saw defendant back at the warehouse and Moody asked
him what he had done. Defendant said that he had robbed the Golden West Bar,
sliced the bartender‟s neck, and stabbed him. Defendant said he used the knife he
bought from Kelley, which he then ditched. Defendant said that he took all the
money, around $280 from the cash register, and that Hollowhornbear had been
with him at the bar. After the crime, they stole a station wagon from downtown
Oakland and “partied the money off.”9 Asked why he had done it, defendant
replied, “You got to do what you got to do.”
9 During the defense case, the parties stipulated that the prosecution and the
defense had examined all police reports logged at the Oakland Police Department
auto theft detail for automobiles that had been reported stolen in Oakland on
(footnote continued on next page)
A few weeks after his conversation with defendant, on October 4, 1984,
Moody was taken into custody by police outside the warehouse based on
outstanding warrants unrelated to the murder.10 At first, Moody denied any
knowledge of the murder, but eventually he told the police about defendant‟s
admissions. Moody stated he had not initially told police about defendant because
he was afraid of defendant‟s brother, Jerry, who he knew was out of jail and who
had stabbed someone before. The day after he talked with police, the district
attorney‟s office made arrangements to house Moody at a motel in Hayward.
Moody stayed there approximately five months. The district attorney‟s office
made weekly payments of $70 for rent and $40 for food for 22 weeks, for a total
d. Testimony of Leonard Ray McCurry
For the first two or three months of 1985, Leonard Ray McCurry was in the
protective custody unit of the Oakland North County Jail, in Alameda County,
serving a five-year sentence for felony robbery. He was housed in the cell next to
defendant, and the two talked. Defendant told McCurry that he had been in a bar
with two other individuals and that they had gone into the bathroom and discussed
robbing the bar. One of the two said he did not want to participate and left.
Defendant and the other one, an “Indian named „Hornblower‟ ”[sic], robbed the
bartender. Defendant realized the bartender would recognize him, so he cut the
(footnote continued from previous page)
September 4 through 6, 1984, and that none of them reported a station wagon
stolen from downtown Oakland.
10 On cross-examination, defense counsel introduced the warrants into evidence.
They were for violating a domestic violence restraining order, unauthorized
destruction of property within a dwelling, unauthorized entry of a dwelling, and
victim‟s throat using his left hand, even though he is right-handed. In early April
1985, McCurry talked to the authorities about defendant‟s statements. McCurry
sought, but did not receive, a lesser sentence in exchange for this information
At the time McCurry testified at defendant‟s trial, he was in custody on a
parole violation. The prosecutor had promised McCurry that, if he testified, he
would be removed from his current prison (Deuel Vocational Institute in Tracy),
put in protective custody in Santa Rita Jail, and allowed to serve the remaining 32
days of his time there. He was also allowed to have a contact visit with his wife
and his newborn daughter.
On cross-examination, McCurry stated that defendant gave him information
knowing McCurry was going to take it to the authorities in order to seek a better
sentence. Defendant and McCurry worked together in figuring out which
information might interest the authorities, and defendant wrote a letter to give
McCurry something tangible to present. The letter was addressed to fictitious
persons asking them to establish an alibi for defendant on the night of the murder.
Defendant also shared with McCurry the contents of defendant‟s legal papers,
including police reports that may have contained the statements of Kelley and
Moody. Defendant came up with the idea of giving McCurry information about
defendant‟s case so that McCurry could take it to the authorities.
e. Defendant’s Statements to the Police
After defendant was arrested for the murder, he was informed of his Miranda
rights, and agreed to talk to police investigators. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384
U.S. 436.) Defendant initially denied any knowledge of or involvement in the
robbery murder. But the officers told him a witness had placed him at the bar, and
they asked him how he would explain it if his fingerprints were found on the cash
register.11 Defendant admitted he had been at the bar and said he had previously
denied it because he was afraid of Hollowhornbear and Hollowhornbear‟s brother.
Defendant‟s initial statements denying any involvement in the murder were
not tape-recorded. After he admitted being at the bar and gave his version of the
events the night of the murder, the officers questioned him on tape. The tape was
played to the jury, and defendant‟s extensive taped interview included the
following statements.12 Defendant, Hollowhornbear, and Kelley were the last
ones in the Golden West Bar the night of the murder. Kelley left to buy some
marijuana and defendant never saw him again that night. The bartender refused to
serve Hollowhornbear, who had become drunk and belligerent, and told him and
defendant to leave. Hollowhornbear went behind the bar and grabbed a bottle.
The bartender went to stop him and the two began scuffling. Defendant tried to
pull Hollowhornbear off the bartender, but let go when he saw that
Hollowhornbear had a knife in his hand. Defendant panicked and ran out of the
bar. When he was out on the street, defendant noticed that there was blood on his
pants and shoes. The next day defendant discarded his bloody clothes in a trash
can in the park. In the park, he encountered Hollowhornbear, who gave him $16,
and expressed anger at defendant for running out on him at the bar.
2. Defense Case
a. Defendant’s Testimony
Defendant testified in his own defense. On September 3, 1984, defendant
was living at the warehouse. At 7 a.m. that day, defendant was picked up by his
11 This was a bluff by the investigators. As the parties stipulated, none of the
latent prints lifted from the bar matched defendant or Hollowhornbear.
12 Defendant‟s version of events in the taped statement was substantially the same
as his testimony at trial, recounted in detail in the next part.
employer, and he worked until about 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. that evening doing
foundation work on a house. While working that day, he injured his hand, and, as
a result, he wore a white gauze pad held on with an Ace bandage and a green
rubber glove with the fingers cut off. After finishing work, he was paid his usual
daily wage of $25 to $30. His employer dropped him back at the warehouse and
defendant went to the liquor store to buy two or three small bottles of mixed
drinks, four cans of beer, and cigarettes. He returned to the warehouse and drank.
Around 10:30 p.m. he left the warehouse with Kelley. Kelley asked
defendant to lend him some money to buy marijuana, offering to split the bag with
him. They met up with Hollowhornbear. Hollowhornbear was about six feet six
inches tall and lived on the streets. He had his possessions in a bag he always
carried with him. He was drinking from a bottle of wine in a paper bag and
appeared to be under the influence.
Kelley went off to buy the marijuana, and defendant talked to
Hollowhornbear. Hollowhornbear‟s mother had just died. She had lived on a
reservation in South Dakota and Hollowhornbear had been trying to raise money
to travel to her funeral. He was angry because no one would give him any money.
Defendant was carrying two knives with him that evening; one had his nickname,
Raccoon, on it, and the other was the knife he had bought from Kelley. Defendant
traded this latter knife to Hollowhornbear for a beaded Indian wristband and a Bic
lighter. Kelley returned after about 10 minutes, but had been unable to procure
The three then went to the Golden West Bar to get a drink. Defendant put
$20 on the bar and bought several rounds of drinks. Defendant tried to play pool
but had problems because he was blind in the left eye, and his other eye was light
sensitive, and, as a result, he wore dark glasses. Kelley eventually left the bar,
indicating that he was going to look for marijuana. After Kelley left,
Hollowhornbear began to act belligerently and tried to order the bartender around.
The bartender refused to serve Hollowhornbear any more drinks. Defendant urged
the bartender to serve Hollowhornbear another beer because that would “mellow”
him out, but the bartender refused and asked Hollowhornbear to leave, threatening
to call the police if he did not. The bartender began walking toward a cab phone at
the other end of the bar that had a direct line to the police station. Hollowhornbear
headed for the door, but then got behind the bar and reached for one of the bottles.
The bartender ran toward Hollowhornbear and they started wrestling. Defendant
got behind Hollowhornbear and tried to pull him off the bartender.
Hollowhornbear‟s arm flew back and knocked defendant to the floor. Defendant
got up and once again tried to pull Hollowhornbear away. Hollowhornbear was
holding the bartender by the hair and hitting him. As defendant tried to grab
Hollowhornbear‟s arm, defendant saw a knife in Hollowhornbear‟s hand, which
defendant believed was the one he had traded to him earlier in the evening.
Defendant panicked and ran, initially running the wrong way towards the rear of
the bar, and then turning around and running out the front door. Defendant
grabbed a long-necked beer bottle on the way out, which he took back to the
warehouse and remembered seeing the next morning.
After defendant left the bar he began running back to the warehouse.
Pausing to catch his breath at one point, he noticed that there were dots of blood
on the cuff of his pants and on his boots. When he returned to the warehouse he
changed his clothing because it had blood on it, and also because he had urinated
in his pants. Defendant had worn a denim jacket to the bar, which he kept (and
was wearing when he was arrested about a month later). But he threw away his
pants, socks, and boots in a Dumpster in Estuary Park the day after the killing.
Defendant did not see either Kelley or Hollowhornbear at the warehouse that
The next day, defendant encountered Hollowhornbear at a park near the
warehouse. Hollowhornbear gave defendant about $16. As they talked,
Hollowhornbear indicated he was angry that defendant had “run out on him” at the
bar. Hollowhornbear‟s hand was hurt and he had a bandanna on it.
Hollowhornbear threatened that if anything happened to him, he or his brother,
Seth, would kill defendant. Following his encounter with Hollowhornbear,
defendant stopped staying at the warehouse and lived for four or five days in a
hole under the sidewalk that was the remains of the basement of a demolished
building. Defendant then went back to staying at the warehouse, where he was
arrested on October 5, 1984. At the time of his arrest, defendant was on probation
for two second degree burglaries to which he had pleaded guilty the year before.
After his arrest, defendant initially denied any knowledge of the killing at the
Golden West Bar or knowing Hollowhornbear because he did not want to get
involved and because he was afraid of Hollowhornbear‟s brother. After the police
told him that Hollowhornbear had been arrested, he told the police what had
Defendant denied the substance of Kelley‟s testimony. He denied that he
ever suggested to Kelley that the three of them should rob the bar, denied ever
robbing the bar, and denied taking any money or liquor bottles from the bar. He
denied running with Kelley and Hollowhornbear back to the warehouse, hiding the
knife, or going with Kelley to throw his clothes into the water at Jack London
Square. He denied having a steak dinner with Kelley at the Jack London Inn the
night of the murder. He denied cutting the throat of the victim or telling Kelley
that he had done so. He acknowledged owning a black security-type jacked but
stated it had been destroyed in a house fire prior to the night of the killing.
Defendant also denied the substance of Moody‟s testimony. Defendant
denied telling Moody he had killed the bartender, robbed the Golden West Bar,
stolen a car, and spent all the money from the robbery “partying.” Defendant said
he once told Moody that he had killed someone in Los Angeles in order to frighten
Moody, but he had never actually killed anyone. He confirmed that Moody
approached him about buying the knife that defendant had obtained from Kelley,
but claimed Moody never had enough money to complete the deal.
Defendant acknowledged he had given information about his case to
jailhouse informant McCurry, but denied telling McCurry that he robbed the
Golden West Bar and cut the bartender‟s throat. Rather, defendant told McCurry
those were statements that McCurry could tell the authorities defendant had made
in order to obtain a deal from them. Defendant said he wrote a letter to a fictitious
person asking for an alibi as part of the scheme to provide McCurry with material
to obtain a deal. Defendant said he came up with the story about killing the
bartender with his left hand in order to account for the fact that defendant‟s right
hand was injured at the time.
b. Physical and Circumstantial Evidence
A police officer testified that the day after the stabbing he searched streets
surrounding the bar but did not find any bottles with bar spouts or any other
evidence that might have come from the bar.
The hair found in the victim‟s hand matched the victim, not defendant.
The parties stipulated that the victim had a blood-alcohol concentration of
.222 at the time of his injury. Dr. Thomas Rogers, a forensic pathologist, gave his
opinion as to the effects of alcohol on the human body. He testified that alcohol
can impair a person‟s perception, coordination, and memory. Given the victim‟s
blood-alcohol concentration, Rogers estimated the victim had drunk at least the
equivalent of nine cans of beer. At that concentration, the victim was under the
influence of alcohol in both a legal and medical sense, and his intoxication could
have affected the reliability of his response to the question of how many people
were involved in his stabbing.
Two investigators from the Alameda County Public Defender‟s Office
testified that they measured the distances in the area of the Golden West Bar. One
investigator stood in front of the bar waving some shiny objects (keys and a metal
soda can), while the second walked down 12th Street noting their visibility from
various distances. The second investigator testified that she could not see the
shiny objects when she got as far as the intersection with Harrison Street.
The parties stipulated that Hollowhornbear‟s mother, Elizabeth
Hollowhornbear, died on August 22, 1984 in South Dakota.
c. Impeachment of Prosecution Witnesses
To contradict Kelley‟s testimony that he had left Oakland for his brother‟s
house in Fremont the morning after the murder, the defense called Sharon
McBride, a fellow alcoholic who knew defendant and Kelley. She testified that, a
couple of days after Labor Day 1984, she saw Kelley drinking in a park in
Oakland. A police officer testified that she had arrested McBride for public
drunkenness in the park on September 6, 1984.
Bill Gregg, the general manager of the Jack London Inn, testified that
(contrary to Kelley‟s testimony) in September 1984 no musicians or singers were
employed at the Jack London Inn. The Inn began to employ musicians in January
Robert Gannon, an inspector for the Alameda County District Attorney‟s
Office, stated that, in February and March 1985, Gannon paid Kelley $110 a week
for six weeks. Gannon testified that neither he nor any member of the district
attorney‟s office promised Kelley immunity from prosecution in exchange for his
testimony. However, Harold Boscovich, director of the victim/witness assistance
program, acknowledged that his office‟s application to the state for additional
funds indicated that Kelley had been given immunity for conspiracy to kill a
bartender in a local bar. Boscovich stated that his office typically would have
received the information it used for the application from the district attorney‟s
Inspector Gannon stated that from October 1984 to March 1985, the district
attorney‟s office paid Moody $110 a week, for a total of a little over $2,400.
Gannon paid $70 to Moody‟s landlord and gave the remaining $40 directly to
Moody. The district attorney‟s office relocated Moody from the warehouse and
paid his rent because Moody feared harm from defendant‟s brother, who was out
When police brought Moody in for questioning, they were aware there was a
warrant for his arrest, but they did not arrest him after they finished questioning
him. The officer who checked Moody‟s warrant recalled it as being for a minor
Lothar Eissel testified that between 1985 and 1987 his daughter, Lola Eissel
(also known as Lola Powers), lived with Moody. Lothar said Moody told him that
he was a witness in a murder trial and that it made him “immuned [sic] to the
law.” At one point, Moody broke into the apartment he shared with Lola and got
into a scuffle with Lothar. Moody was arrested, but then released two hours later.
Patrick Fitzgerald Robello testified that he had worked with Moody at a gas
station and, in his opinion, Moody did not tell the truth.
3. Prosecution Rebuttal Case
a. Kelley’s Prior Consistent Statements about the Murder
Kim Kelley, Kelley‟s sister-in-law, testified that Kelley came to her house in
Fremont around Labor Day, September 3, 1984, or the day after. Kelley told her
he had a problem in Oakland where he was living. He said he had been in a bar
with a White male and a Native American male, and the White male asked him to
help rob the bar. Kelley said he refused to rob the bar and left. He was walking
away from the bar when he heard some noise and turned around to see people
running out of the bar. The White male came running up to him; his clothes were
full of blood and he had some money sticking out of his pockets. Kelley said that
he went to the river with the White male, who dumped the money and the clothes
into the water. The White male gave Kelley some money and told him to get out
of town and not to talk to the police. Kelley rode BART to his sister-in-law‟s
house with the money the White male gave him.
b. Kelley’s Dealings with the Authorities
Jerry Curtis was a deputy district attorney in October 1984, and filed the
complaint against defendant in the case. Curtis advised the investigating officers
that he was not going to charge Kelley. Curtis made no promises to Kelley
concerning immunity from prosecution.
Retired Justice of the First District Court of Appeal Joanne Parrilli, then an
Alameda County Superior Court judge, testified that, on October 15, 1984, when
she was a deputy district attorney, she took a statement from Kelley. In her
opinion, Kelley was a witness rather than a participant in the robbery murder. She
never made any promises of immunity to Kelley.
Albert W. Meloling was assistant district attorney in charge of northern
Alameda County, including Berkeley, Oakland, and Alameda. One of his
responsibilities was reviewing all capital matters. He had no discussions with
anyone regarding immunity from prosecution for Kelley.
Angela Backers was the prosecutor who was assigned to the preliminary
hearing of defendant and Hollowhornbear. Kelley and Moody were among the
witnesses she called. Backers never discussed immunity with Kelley. The district
attorney‟s office never considered charging Kelley with any offense.
Recalled on rebuttal by the prosecutor, Inspector Gannon stated he never told
Inspector Boscovich (of the victim/witness program) that Kelley was involved in a
conspiracy to rob and murder a bartender at a local bar, nor did he ever tell
Boscovich that Kelley had been granted immunity. Gannon reiterated that he had
not made any promises or representations to Kelley that he would be given
c. Moody’s Dealings with the Authorities
Richard Humphrey, an attorney who represented Moody in a number of
misdemeanors and traffic matters, testified he never made any representations to
the court or to the district attorney‟s office that Moody was a witness in a
homicide case and was seeking some leniency or consideration by virtue of that
fact. Humphrey did not even know that Moody was a witness in a homicide case
when he represented him.
Deputy District Attorney Backers testified she was aware that Moody was
in custody for misdemeanor driving on a suspended license. She asked that he be
released from custody on his own recognizance because his life was endangered
due to the testimony he was going to give in defendant‟s case. She asked that his
misdemeanor traffic case be continued to a later date so that he could appear as a
witness at the preliminary hearing. Backers was also involved in securing
Moody‟s release on his own recognizance in another case. She never asked for
any leniency for Moody, and he was convicted in the misdemeanor traffic case.
B. Second Trial: Special Circumstance Retrial
After the court declared a mistrial at the first trial on the robbery-murder
special-circumstance allegation, a second jury was impaneled to retry it.
1. The Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution presented a substantially similar but more compact version
of its case at the first trial, calling the same major witnesses to establish the facts
surrounding the discovery of the victim at the Golden West Bar and the nature of
the fatal injuries. Kevin Kelley was called and gave substantially the same
testimony. However, Leonard McCurry was not called to testify.
Thomas Moody could not be located, and the prosecution moved to have him
declared an unavailable witness. The court held a hearing in which the prosecutor
and his inspector presented evidence of their unsuccessful efforts to locate Moody.
The court ruled that the prosecution had exercised due diligence in attempting to
locate Moody for trial, and that Moody was unavailable. Over defense objection,
his prior testimony was read to the jury.
2. Defense Case
Defendant did not testify at the special circumstance retrial.
The defense called the first police officer who arrived at the Golden West Bar
and questioned him about the victim‟s final words and gestures. The defense also
called a police officer and an inspector from the District Attorney‟s office who had
interviewed Kelley and questioned them about Kelley‟s pretrial statements to
them. As in the first trial, the defense called Dr. Rogers to testify about the
amount of alcohol the victim had ingested.
C. Second Trial: Penalty Phase
The jury found the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation to be
true, and the trial proceeded to the penalty phase. The prosecutor listed 29 matters
in aggravation in his section 190.3 notice, including prior felony convictions and
1. Prosecution Case in Aggravation
a. Prior Felony Convictions
The prosecutor presented evidence that defendant had suffered five felony
convictions from 1976 to 1984: three for second degree burglary, one for
attempted first degree burglary, and one for being an inmate in possession of a
b. Unadjudicated Criminal Activity
(1) Rape of Amanda V. M.; Assault on Patrick Ryan
Amanda V. M. testified that in April 1977, defendant, who lived in the same
apartment complex in North Hollywood, approached her in the hallway of the
building and forced her into the laundry room by threatening to stab her with a
knife. Defendant removed some of her clothing by cutting it away with his knife,
and then raped her. Defendant wanted her to come stay at his apartment because
he disapproved of her living with a Black man. A week later, defendant
threatened to rape her again if she did not leave the Black man‟s apartment. She
told two male friends, who confronted defendant in his apartment. Defendant
stabbed one of the men, Patrick Ryan, during the confrontation. The police officer
who responded to the disturbance testified that Ryan suffered two stab wounds,
one to his hand and one to his groin. After his arrest, defendant told the officer he
was trying to defend himself when he stabbed Ryan, and that Ryan had accused
him of raping a woman. Defendant was not charged in connection with either the
Amanda V. M. or Ryan incidents.
(2) Assault on Jose Jacobo
Jose Jacobo testified that in 1976, defendant, part of a group of four or five
people, pulled a gun on him and demanded money. Jacobo grabbed the barrel of
the gun and pushed it away, and then was hit in the head and beaten with a stick
by someone in the group.
(3) May Company Theft
A security guard for the May Company department store in North Hollywood
testified that, in 1980, defendant struck him a glancing blow when he attempted to
prevent defendant and an accomplice from stealing clothing from the store.
Defendant acknowledged to his parole officer at the time that he had participated
in the theft and swung at the security guard.
(4) Possession of weapons while an inmate
In 1978, a guard found an inmate-manufactured weapon made out of
bedspring material in defendant‟s cell in Chino State Prison. In 1983, defendant
was found with a small handmade knife while incarcerated at the Santa Rita Jail.
c. Incidents During Custody
The prosecutor presented evidence of four unadjudicated incidents between
1984 and 1992 that occurred while defendant was incarcerated in the county jail
before and during his trials for his capital offense. Defendant threatened to stab an
inmate named Mario Holland in the neck with a pair of fingernail clippers.
Defendant was involved in a fight with another inmate, George Calderon, and
bloodied his nose. After guards responded to a disturbance in which defendant
threatened another inmate, Lynch, defendant threatened a guard with a broom.
Finally, the prosecutor presented testimony that defendant had planned to
escape. Roger Rosenberg, an inmate incarcerated in the North County Jail in
Oakland, testified that on October 25, 1985, he overheard defendant tell another
inmate that defendant and his brother were planning defendant‟s escape from
Highland Hospital. The plan involved defendant‟s brother being armed with a
gun. Defendant also mentioned an alternate plan, by which his brother would
bring a gun to court and effect his escape.
2. Defense Case in Mitigation
a. Defendant’s Testimony
Defendant testified about his childhood and early adult years. Defendant was
born in Portland, Oregon, and his parents settled in the San Fernando Valley area
of Southern California when he was 11 or 12 years old. Defendant‟s parents were
both heavy drinkers who frequently fought physically and injured each other.
Defendant‟s father declared he had never wanted to have defendant and his brother
Jerry, and beat them at least once a week. Defendant‟s father was a neglectful
parent who never took defendant anywhere except bars, where he and his brother
would play in the parking lot. Although defendant‟s mother was also a drinker,
she provided some degree of care and support to defendant and his brother.
At age nine or 10, defendant felt he did not fit in at school because of his
clothes, and because some of the parents told their children not to play with him.
He was ridiculed as being “White trash” by the other kids. By this time, defendant
was drinking alcohol, which he stole from a bar. By age 13 or 14, he was drinking
heavily. He also sniffed spot remover and smoked marijuana. He was arrested
several times for burglary. When he was 14 or 15, he was involved in juvenile
court proceedings and was sent to an institution for six months. He attempted
suicide around this time. When he was 15 or 16, his mother died. At various
times between the ages of 15 and 27 (when he was arrested for the capital crime)
defendant was incarcerated at several county jails and state prisons for periods
ranging from six months to a year.
On cross-examination, defendant admitted that he possessed books on
Satanism, and that, at one point, he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He
admitted that when he was 13 years old, he and his brother laid chains on a
railroad track, but he denied trying to derail the train. He admitted that, when he
was 21 years old, he had broken into a sporting goods store, stolen between 30 and
40 guns, and been sent to state prison for this crime.
b. Other Testimony on Defendant’s Social History
The owner of the apartment that defendant lived in when he was around 14
years old testified that defendant‟s father “just wasn‟t much of a parent,” and that
he could smell alcohol in the apartment. A neighbor, Deborah Thielen, testified
that every time she saw defendant‟s father he was intoxicated. Defendant fought
with his father, and sometimes ran away for periods of weeks or a month.
Dr. Karen Gudiksen, a psychiatrist, interviewed defendant for approximately
10 hours over five sessions, interviewed defendant‟s brother for one and a half
hours, and reviewed medical, school, and probation records provided by defense
counsel. She concluded that defendant suffered from chronic alcoholism with
some mild organic brain impairment. His organic brain impairment was probably
caused by his excessive consumption of alcohol, his many head injuries, and his
use of inhalants, such as sniffing gasoline.
Dr. Gudiksen‟s social history of defendant paralleled defendant‟s testimony.
Defendant‟s father was an abusive alcoholic who fought frequently with
defendant‟s mother and beat the children. Defendant‟s mother was also a drinker.
The family was transient, sometimes with no permanent place to stay. Defendant
and his brother raised themselves from a very early age, scrounging and
shoplifting to obtain clothes. School records indicated that by the fourth grade
defendant was working below grade level. A junior high school evaluation stated
he was getting little or no help at home, and that he needed a lot of help because
he was heading for “real problems” otherwise.
Defendant was drinking and using marijuana by the time he was 12 or 13.
He went on to use barbiturates and a wide variety of inhalants. At 16, he was
placed in a juvenile facility for some months, but eventually was returned to his
home environment, which remained neglectful and abusive. Around this time, he
contemplated suicide after a girlfriend broke up with him. Defendant was not
religious as a youth, but as a young adult he converted to Catholicism in custody
after taking counseling from a priest.
c. Expert Witnesses
Dr. Richard L. Basford, a physician whose practice included the treatment of
alcoholism, treated defendant for about three years, beginning in 1980. Dr.
Basford made a diagnosis of chronic alcoholism and chronic brain syndrome,
which is nerve loss in the brain as a result of chronic alcoholism. Basford
reexamined defendant in 1992 in the county jail, and diagnosed him with chronic
brain syndrome, secondary to multiple head traumas and alcoholism.
Dr. Joseph Izzo, a licensed neurosurgeon, testified that he performed a
neurological examination of defendant in 1992 that revealed no evidence of
organic brain injury. Defendant‟s electroencephalogram (EEG) was minimally
abnormal and was consistent with, but not diagnostic of, a possible seizure
disorder, and provided minimal evidence of a possible left temporal abnormality.
A minimal abnormality is one that is not readily evident when the patient is
d. Character Witnesses
Ronald Paul Harton, the pastor of the Pacifica Baptist Church, allowed
defendant to live in his home on two occasions in 1980 when defendant was
between incarcerations. The first time was for a few days, the second time for
about two months. Harton and his family never had any problems with defendant;
according to Harton, defendant tried hard to change his way of life, particularly his
David Ferguson, director of Open Door Mission, a support center for the
homeless, knew defendant before his incarceration for the capital crime, when
defendant came to his mission for meals. Ferguson found defendant to be “one of
the nicest persons you ever want to meet” when he was sober, but an aggressive
“idiot” when he was drunk.
Sue Ochs was an attorney appointed by the federal District Court for the
Northern District of California to take over a civil lawsuit originally filed by
defendant on behalf of himself and two other inmates in the North County Jail
concerning the confiscation of religious objects and the lack of religious services
for Catholic inmates. The case was ultimately settled, resulting in the availability
of Catholic religious services at the jail. In her interactions with defendant in the
course of the lawsuit, she found defendant to be very focused, sincere, and helpful.
Jessie Pettingill corresponded with defendant for seven years as part of her
church‟s prison ministry program. She testified that she and defendant had
become very close, and that defendant had helped her through difficult times in
her life, such as the death of her granddaughter.
Carol Johnson, a social worker at Catholic Charities in Oakland, served as a
visiting chaplain at the North County Jail, where defendant was incarcerated. She
had discussions with defendant on various spiritual and secular topics and
considered him a very gentle person who was reaching out for help.
Eugene Stelly was a deacon at a Roman Catholic church in Oakland who
performed a Catholic religious service at the North County Jail on Sunday
mornings. Over a five-year period, he ministered to defendant on a one-to-one
basis and found him to be a serious student with whom he had good rapport.
Susan Sawyer, an Assistant Public Defender for Alameda County and
defendant‟s lawyer for his first trial, testified that defendant was polite and hard
working. She never felt physically threatened by him, even when alone with him.
3. Prosecution Rebuttal
Kathleen Boyovich, a bailiff in the courtroom during part of defendant‟s first
trial in 1988, testified about physical interactions between defense counsel Susan
Sawyer and defendant. Sawyer fixed defendant‟s hair, rubbed his head, and put
her arms around him. This concerned Boyovich for security reasons, and she
personally found it repulsive.
A. First Trial (Guilt Phase)
1. Asserted Prosecutorial Misconduct
Defendant contends that pervasive prosecutorial misconduct denied him a
fair trial, a fair special circumstance finding, and a fair death judgment in violation
of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the California
Constitution.13 The standards governing review of misconduct claims are settled.
13 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 issues at trial, however, he failed explicitly to
make some or all of the constitutional arguments he now asserts on appeal. Unless
otherwise indicated, his appellate claims either required no action by defendant to
preserve them, or involved application of the same facts or legal standards
(footnote continued on next page)
“A prosecutor who uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury
commits misconduct, and such actions require reversal under the federal
Constitution when they infect the trial with such „ “unfairness as to make the
resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ‟ (Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477
U.S. 168, 181; see People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 733.) “Under state law,
a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions
do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial.” (People v. Alfaro (2007) 41 Cal.4th
1277, 1328.) “In order to preserve a claim of misconduct, a defendant must make
a timely objection and request an admonition; only if an admonition would not
have cured the harm is the claim of misconduct preserved for review.” (Ibid.)
When a claim of misconduct is based on the prosecutor‟s comments before the
jury, “ „the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury
construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable
fashion.‟ ” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 960, quoting People v.
Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.)
As discussed in detail below, we conclude that defendant forfeited several of
the instances of asserted misconduct he now raises because trial counsel failed to
object or failed to object adequately. We have stated an exception to the
(footnote continued from previous page)
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, where 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.)
requirement that trial counsel must object to each instance of misconduct to
preserve it on appeal when the “misconduct [is] pervasive, defense counsel [has]
repeatedly but vainly objected to try to curb the misconduct, and the courtroom
atmosphere was so poisonous that further objections would have been futile.”
(People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 501-502, citing People v. Hill (1998)
17 Cal.4th 800, 821, 836.) But this case did not rise to that level. Defense counsel
objected frequently to the prosecutor‟s conduct, and the trial court sustained
several objections. From our review of the record, we conclude the trial court kept
a firm hand on the actions of the attorneys and maintained a fair proceeding.
For all the asserted instances of misconduct, whether forfeited or not, we
conclude either that the instance was not misconduct or that any misconduct that
occurred could not have contributed to the verdict and was harmless in light of the
evidence of defendant‟s guilt. (See People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 173.) In
concluding that any misconduct that occurred was not prejudicial we again note
that the trial court was firmly in charge of the proceeding and kept matters under
control by sustaining several defense objections. Furthermore we conclude that
none of the asserted instances of misconduct was of such severity, considered
alone or together with the other asserted instances of misconduct, that it resulted in
an unfair trial in violation of defendant‟s state and federal constitutional rights.
a. Disparagement of Defense Counsel
During trial, the prosecutor, Theodore Landswick, described Defense
Counsel Susan Sawyer as being “a true believer” who would “support her belief
based only on her belief,” and likened her arguments to “spit[ting] in your face to
insult you.” He repeatedly accused her of obscuring the truth and confusing the
jury. Defendant also contends the prosecutor implied that trial counsel had
stopped playing a taped statement in order to cover something up, even though the
court had made a ruling outside the presence of the jury that she could not play the
rest of the tape.
Defense counsel frequently objected during the prosecutor‟s closing
argument and rebuttal, but mainly on the basis that he was misstating the evidence.
Defense counsel only specifically objected to three comments as personal attacks:
(1) the “true believer” comment, which was sustained and the prosecutor was
instructed to “leave personalities out of it” (2) the comment that one of her
arguments was “childish,” which was overruled, and (3) the tape-stopping
coverup implication, which was sustained to the extent the court instructed the
prosecutor, for the second time, to refrain from making personal attacks.
Accordingly, defendant‟s claims as to the other comments are forfeited. (People
v. Alfaro, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1328.)
While we have stated “ „[a] prosecutor may vigorously argue his case,
marshalling the facts and arguing inferences to be drawn therefrom,‟ ” we have
also observed that “[p]ersonal attacks on opposing counsel are improper and
irrelevant to the issues.” (People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 184, 183-184.)
As to the prosecutor‟s comments in closing argument about defense counsel‟s
playing the tape, we conclude that there was no misconduct. “The prosecutor did
not engage in such forbidden tactics as accusing defense counsel of fabricating a
defense or factually deceiving the jury.” (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th
1082, 1154, disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th
390, 421, fn. 22.) The complete transcript of the tape had already been presented
to the jury by that point in the trial, so the prosecutor was not insinuating that trial
counsel was trying to hide anything. Rather, the focus of the prosecutor‟s
comments was that trial counsel‟s playing only a part of the tape could have left a
misleading impression on the jury, which the prosecutor sought to correct by
referring to the complete transcript during his closing argument.
As to the other personal comments, both forfeited and unforfeited, even
assuming the prosecutor‟s behavior was misconduct, we conclude that defendant
was not prejudiced. The trial court twice firmly admonished the prosecutor
against making personal comments, which insured that the jury understood that
such comments were irrelevant to its consideration of the case.14 From our review
of the record, we conclude “ „it is not reasonably probable that the prosecutor‟s
occasional intemperate behavior affected the jury‟s evaluation of the evidence or
the rendering of its verdict.‟ ” (People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 503,
quoting People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820-21.)
b. Disparagement of Defendant
Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by laughing
during defendant‟s testimony on direct examination, and by making disparaging
comments about defendant during summation.
During a break in the proceedings, defense counsel objected to the
prosecutor‟s conduct during defendant‟s testimony, asserting he had “been kind of
sitting there laughing.” The court overruled the objection, noting that it was “not
going to tell people they can‟t laugh or smile.” Later, during her closing
14 After sustaining defense counsel‟s objection to the “true believer” comment, the
court said: “[Y]ou‟re complaining that she is a true believer. Make your
comments. You can argue about what was good or what was bad in your opinion
about her argument, but I think personally you should leave personalities out of
it.” Later after defense counsel objected to the asserted implication that she had
stopped playing a tape at a key point to cover up what came next, the court stated:
“First of all, Mr. Landswick, I‟m going to ask you again to refrain from personal
attacks upon defense counsel . . . .”
argument, defense counsel stated, “[d]uring Mr. Friend‟s testimony on the stand,
Mr. Landswick was laughing, rolling his eyes, waving his hands, did a lot of
things to give the impression that this testimony was absolutely not worthy of
belief.” During his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor referred to his “chortling
during the examination of the defendant,” explaining that “what caused [him] to
chuckle” was that defense counsel engaged in leading questions to get the
testimony she wanted from defendant.
We have stated that “juvenile courtroom behavior by a public prosecutor
demeans the office.” (People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 834.) Here, how
much the prosecutor laughed is unclear, although the prosecutor himself admitted
to some chuckling and chortling. Even assuming the prosecutor‟s behavior was
misconduct, we conclude it was harmless. The trial court, which was in the best
position to assess the prosecutor‟s behavior, did not find that his actions disrupted
the proceedings. Defendant further argues that the laughter provoked defendant to
be hostile to the prosecutor during his cross-examination, which redounded to
defendant‟s detriment in front of the jury. The record, however, indicates that
defendant‟s hostility during cross-examination was caused by the prosecutor‟s
rigorous questioning. Any additional hostility accruing from the laughter appears
minimal. Given this record, we see no prejudice to defendant.
(2) Disparaging Comments
Defendant complains of various disparaging comments made by the
prosecutor, none of which were objected to at trial, and all of which are therefore
forfeited on appeal. Furthermore, we reject defendant‟s claim on the merits. The
prosecutor commented on the fact that defendant had “washed his hands in the
toilet bowl” and described defendant‟s living beneath the sidewalk as “living like a
mole or the rat that he is.” As we have noted, the use of derogatory epithets to
describe a defendant is not necessarily misconduct. (People v. Ashmus (1991) 54
Cal.3d 932, 975, disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman (2003) 31
Cal.4th 93, 117.) The prosecutor‟s remarks here were founded on evidence in the
record and fell within the permissible bounds of argument. (See People v.
Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1172 [argument may include opprobrious
epithets warranted by the evidence]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153,
221 [prosecutors are afforded a wide range of descriptive comment, including
epithets].) Defendant also complains that the prosecutor implied or directly stated
that defendant had lied in his testimony at various points. But, “[w]hen a
defendant‟s testimony contradicts the strong evidence of his guilt, it is not
improper to call him a liar.” (People v. Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1173.)
Such was the case here.
c. Elicitation of Evidence on Subject Matters That Had been Ruled
Defendant contends the prosecutor repeatedly elicited prejudicial evidence
that previously had been ruled inadmissible.
(1) Dina Mladinich’s hearsay statement
After the murder, Dina Mladinich, the owner of the warehouse, told Moody
that defendant had blood on his pants. This caused Moody to engage defendant in
a conversation that revealed defendant had discarded the knife used in the murder.
In preparation for Moody‟s testimony, defense counsel moved to have the
prosecutor instruct Moody not to testify as to what Mladinich said, on the grounds
it was hearsay. The court instructed the prosecutor that while Moody could testify
that a conversation with Mladinich had led him to believe there had been some
trouble concerning defendant, which in turn caused him to ask defendant about
blood on his clothing, Moody was not to mention what Mladinich had told him.
Despite the court‟s instruction, on redirect examination the prosecutor began to
ask Moody a question on precisely this point. Defense counsel cut off the
prosecutor with an objection before Mladinich‟s comment could be revealed to the
jury. The court admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutor‟s question.
Defense counsel asked the court to cite the prosecutor for misconduct and later,
outside the presence of the jury, moved for a mistrial. The court denied the
motion, but severely chastised the prosecutor and warned him against any further
misconduct. Later, during closing argument, the prosecutor made a passing
reference to the hearsay statement (“Moody had talked to Dina about blood on
Friend‟s pants”) which was not objected to.
In directly posing a question about Mladinich‟s statement, the prosecutor
violated the trial court‟s prior evidentiary ruling, and, whether done intentionally
or not, committed misconduct. (See People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 822,
829 [prosecutorial misconduct does not require a showing of bad faith].) We
conclude, however, that the misconduct was harmless. Defense counsel cut off the
prosecutor with an objection before the hearsay statement could be revealed to the
jury, and the trial court admonished the jury to disregard the question. As to the
prosecutor‟s reference to the hearsay statement during summation, defendant
forfeited this claim by failing to object. Moreover, on the merits, we conclude the
comment was harmless because it was brief and ambiguous as to who had
mentioned the blood, Moody or Mladinich. Defendant contends that any reference
to the Mladinich hearsay statement about blood on defendant‟s clothing was
particularly damaging because this was the only independent corroboration of
Kelley‟s account of the evening. Defendant had admitted, however, both in his
recorded statement to the police and in his testimony, that there was blood on his
clothing that evening. On this record, we see no prejudice to defendant.
(2) Prior Trouble at the Oasis
During his opening statement, the prosecutor described how defendant,
Hollowhornbear, and Kelley ended up going to the Golden West Bar the night of
the murder. Originally, the group was headed to buy beer at the Oasis, a
convenience store in downtown Oakland. But, because defendant had been in
trouble at the Oasis before, he did not want to go there that night, so they went to
the Golden West Bar instead. The trial court sustained a defense objection to the
prosecutor‟s comment during opening statement that defendant had been in trouble
at the Oasis, and instructed the jury to ignore it. Later, in preparation for Kelley‟s
testimony, defense counsel made an in limine motion to preclude Kelley from
mentioning that the reason defendant did not go the Oasis was because he had
stolen something or gotten into trouble there before. The court ruled that the fact
defendant stole something there was to be excluded because it was a crime, but
also ruled that generally mentioning that defendant had gotten into trouble there
would be allowed. During Kelley‟s testimony, over the objection of defense
counsel, the prosecutor elicited testimony that defendant had said he did not want
to go the Oasis because “he had trouble there in the past.”
Defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by
mentioning the Oasis incident during his opening statement and later asking
Kelley a question about it. We conclude there was no misconduct. Before the
prosecutor‟s opening statement, the trial court had not ruled that any and all
mention of defendant‟s past troubles at the Oasis was excluded. When the trial
court did rule on the issue, immediately before Kelley‟s testimony, it excluded
inquiry into prior stealing, but allowed inquiry into the general fact that defendant
had gotten into trouble there before, which was what the prosecutor‟s question
(3) Defendant’s Prior Jail Time
In preparation for Kelley‟s testimony, defense counsel made an in limine
motion to exclude any inquiry into the fact that defendant had previously been
incarcerated. The court ruled that, in his direct testimony, Kelley should avoid any
reference to defendant‟s having been jailed, but noted that, if the defense raised
the issue on cross-examination, the door would be open to the subject. Later,
while cross-examining defendant, the prosecutor asked defendant whether, prior to
the murder, he had been released from jail. During a break, outside the presence
of the jury, defense counsel objected that the prosecutor had raised defendant‟s
prior jail time. The court ruled that its prior ruling had only applied to other
witnesses, and that, once defendant took the stand, he opened up the issue,
especially in light of the fact that on direct examination defendant had testified he
had suffered two prior felony convictions.
Defendant acknowledges the court ultimately overruled the defense objection
to the prosecutor‟s question, but argues that the prosecutor nonetheless engaged in
misconduct because the information was inadmissible at the time the prosecutor
posed the question. But the trial court‟s earlier ruling had not categorically
prohibited the subject. Because the defense opened the door to the subject by
eliciting defendant‟s prior felony convictions in his direct testimony, the
prosecutor properly could raise the issue in cross-examination.
15 Defendant does not challenge the trial court‟s ruling allowing this inquiry.
d. Misconduct During Closing Argument: Vouching for Kelley’s
Defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in improper tactics during
closing argument. Defendant‟s main contention is that the prosecutor used
stricken evidence and engaged in improper vouching for Kelley‟s testimony about
how far down 12th Street he was when he saw defendant emerge from the bar.
As recounted above, Kelley testified he was about three-quarters of the way
down the block of 12th Street (between Webster and Harrison Streets) when he
stopped to look back and saw defendant and Hollowhornbear on the sidewalk in
front of the Golden West Bar. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked
Kelley why, at every previous instance in which he had given a statement or
testified, he had stated that he had passed Harrison Street before looking back.
Kelley answered, “I retraced my, you know, steps and I just went to the same spot
I thought I did that night,” and reasserted that he had not crossed Harrison Street
before looking back.
During the prosecutor‟s case in rebuttal, he called Michael Pon, an inspector
for the district attorney‟s office, who testified that, on November 15, 1988, he,
Prosecutor Landswick, and Kelley returned to the area of the Golden West Bar, so
that Kelley could retrace his steps the night of the murder.16 Pon testified that
Kelley crossed the intersection of Webster and 12th Street, walked east down 12th
Street, and then stopped three-quarters of the way down the block at a light pole in
front of the Cochran and Celli automotive dealership. There were four light poles
on the block equally spaced apart and Kelley stopped at the third one. The
16 Defendant‟s first trial ran from August 1, 1988 through February 17, 1989.
Kelley‟s direct testimony was on December 1, 1988. Pon‟s testimony was on
December 14, 1988.
distance between the light pole and the front door of the auto dealership was
approximately 38 feet. The distance between the light post and corner of 12th and
Harrison (the next intersection down) was approximately 112 feet.
Defense counsel successfully moved to strike Pon‟s testimony on the grounds
that Kelley‟s step retracing demonstration constituted hearsay. The prosecutor
then asked that Pon‟s testimony about the measurements from the door of the auto
dealership to the light pole and from the door to the corner be allowed to remain as
evidence. Defense counsel had no objection, and the court so ruled.
During his summation, the prosecutor discussed how far down 12th Street
Kelly was on the night of the murder when he looked back and saw defendant.
The prosecutor stated that Kelley “testified at this trial that he went back on
November 15th of 1988 and he walked the scene again for the first time, and he
said he got to approximately the light, the streetlight after the front doors of
Cochran and Celli.”17 The prosecutor also returned to the issue in his rebuttal
summation. He acknowledged that Kelley had, in his previous statements and
testimony, indicated he was further down 12th Street when he saw defendant
coming out of the bar. The prosecutor stated that Kelly‟s latest account was “after
we went with him for a walk to recreate the scene and he testified that he did not
cross Harrison, that he stopped beyond the doors of Cochran and Celli, which is in
the middle of the block.” Then, apparently referring to a diagram, the prosecutor
presented a series of measurements concerning the distances to various points on
12th Street, at one point referring to the Pythagorean theorem to compute one of
17 During this part of his summation, the prosecutor was referring to People‟s
exhibit No. 9, which was a diagram of the streets in the area of the Golden West
the distances.18 In support of his numbers, he stated, “I measured the distance
where Kevin Kelley said he was now was [sic] as 124 yards or 371 feet, 124
yards.” He also stated that he had measured the distance to the corner of 12th and
Harrison as 616 feet (approximately 200 yards), and that defense counsel had been
incorrect in her summation in stating the distance as 559 feet. Holding up a golf
ball, he used a golf analogy to dispute the defense argument that Kelley could not
have seen defendant because he was too far down the street. He stated that 124
yards (the distance to the light post in front of the auto dealership) or even 200
yards (the approximate distance to the corner of 12th Street and Harrison) were
distances from the tee from which golfers can see a one-inch golf flag at the hole.
Defendant contends the prosecutor relied on the stricken Pon testimony to
misrepresent Kelley‟s testimony, and that he also improperly vouched for Kelley‟s
testimony. We conclude that, in his description of Kelley‟s testimony, the
prosecutor added details from the stricken Pon testimony and at least one detail
from the prosecutor‟s own recollection as well. Kelley‟s only reference to the
reenactment was: “I retraced my, you know, steps and I just went to the same spot
I thought I did that night.” The prosecutor added the details (1) that Kelley had
gone to the scene with him and Pons, (2) that it was the first time Kelley had been
back there, and (3) that Kelley stopped in front of a lamp post in front of the doors
of the Cochran and Celli auto dealership. 19
18 The prosecutor referred to one of the two measurements by Pon that was
allowed into evidence, but he did not expressly identify the evidentiary basis for
all the measurements he presented here.
19 The detail that it was the first time Kelley had been back appears to be the
prosecutor‟s recollection, since it was not in Kelley‟s or Pon‟s testimony.
Defense counsel never objected to the prosecutor‟s comments about the
reenactment during closing argument. Respondent, however, acknowledges that
defense counsel had made several unsuccessful objections to other statements
made by the prosecutor in closing argument on the grounds that he was misstating
the evidence, and respondent concedes defendant‟s point that any further objection
as to these specific statements involving the reenactment would have been futile,
as the court repeatedly had stated it was to going to adhere to its ruling that the
jury had heard the evidence and could make up its own mind about the accuracy of
the prosecutor‟s statements.
Assuming the claim was preserved for review, we conclude defendant
suffered no prejudice from the prosecutor‟s comments. As to the first added
detail, there was no dispute that the prosecutor and Pon were present at the
reenactment, even though Kelley did not describe their presence in his brief
reference to the reenactment during his testimony. This detail was not prejudicial
to defendant. If anything, the fact the prosecutor was at the reenactment was
consistent with the defense argument that the prosecution coached its witnesses.
The second detail (that it was Kelley‟s first return to the scene) was implicit
in Kelley‟s answer in cross-examination about why his testimony at defendant‟s
trial was now different from his statements on previous occasions about his
location, namely that something new had happened since the last time he testified
(he had retraced his steps). But even if this detail added new information, any
effect on the credibility of Kelley‟s testimony was minimal.
As to the third detail about Kelley‟s stopping in front of the doors of the
dealership by the lamp post, Kelley had stated in his testimony that he had walked
“three-quarters of the way down” 12th Street, “where that car dealer is.” Defense
investigator Dea had testified that there were four street lights on each side of the
blocks of 12th Street between Franklin and Harrison, which includes the block
between Webster and Harrison. Thus, the prosecutor could permissibly draw the
inference that Kelley had stopped at the third lamp post on the block between
Webster and Harrison based on Kelley‟s testimony and that of the defense
investigator, even though Pon‟s testimony had been stricken. As noted, the 38-
foot distance from this lamp post to the door of the auto dealership was allowed to
remain in evidence.
The prosecutor‟s use of the golf analogy in his rebuttal was permissible. 20
As we have held, prosecutors are entitled “ „ “during summation [to] state matters
not in evidence, but which are common knowledge or are illustrations drawn from
common experience, history, or literature.” ‟ ” (People v. Williams, supra, 16
Cal.4th at p. 221.) Furthermore, we see no prejudice from the distance arguments
presented by the prosecutor. Defense investigator La Beaux had testified to a
series of measurements she had taken using a roller tape from the Golden West
Bar to several points down 12th Street. Both the prosecution and defense
presented numerous maps and diagrams of the 12th Street area in the course of the
trial. Thus, there remained a body of evidence from which the prosecutor could
have drawn reasonable inferences about the distances involved, even though most
of Pon‟s testimony in this area had been stricken. While the exact source for every
measurement the prosecutor used in his summation is unclear, defendant does not
contest the accuracy of any of the measurements.
Finally defendant contends that the prosecutor‟s statements about the
distances, together with his assertions that he had personally measured them, had
20 It should be noted that, in her summation, defense counsel had used a sports
analogy, which appears to have inspired the prosecutor‟s use of one in rebuttal. In
focusing on Kelley‟s previous statement that he had been at the corner of 12th and
Harrison, defense counsel described the distance as 559 feet, which she analogized
to the length of two football fields.
the effect of vouching for Kelley‟s testimony about what he had seen on the night
of the murder. Admittedly, the prosecutor displayed poor judgment in inserting
himself into his closing argument. But, when viewed in context, his statements
about personally measuring the distances in effect expressed the permissible
argument that he had presented to the jury accurate computations about the
distances. He did not make the impermissible argument that, because he had
personally visited the scene and measured the distances, Kelley‟s testimony must
e. Misconduct During Closing Argument: Misrepresentation of
During cross-examination of Moody, defense counsel introduced evidence of
Moody‟s numerous criminal violations for driving without a license and several
charges of domestic violence and battery. For one series of charges for
unauthorized entry and battery, which were pending in 1988, Moody explained
that he was inside his own dwelling when someone jumped him from behind. In
summation, the prosecutor alluded to this testimony, stating that Moody‟s former
girlfriend, Lola Power, and her father had attacked him in the house where he
lived with Lola. Defense counsel objected that there was no such evidence in the
record. The court overruled the objection, noting that when the issue came up of
his assaulting or battering his wife, Moody tried to explain away his conduct, and
defense counsel had asserted in her closing argument that at the time Moody was
taken into custody in 1984 he had a case pending for domestic battery. Defense
counsel stated that the pending case she referred to was for battery against his
wife, not against his girlfriend Lola Power, an incident that happened later. The
court replied that it was unclear as to whom Moody had been referring, and that
the jury would have to sort it out.
We see no misconduct. It appears that the prosecutor was correct that the
battery charge pending in 1988, which Moody attempted to explain away, related
to the Lola Power incident. In overruling the objection, it appears the trial court
became confused as to which incident defense counsel had referred to in her
summation (which was actually the domestic battery charge pending in 1984).
But we see no prejudice to defendant. As the trial court noted, the jury had heard
all the evidence, and could draw the appropriate inferences about the arguments of
f. Other Asserted Misconduct
In addition to the asserted misconduct discussed above, defendant cites
numerous other instances of asserted misconduct based on the prosecutor‟s asking
leading questions, misstating the evidence, and misstating the law. Defendant
failed to object to many of the asserted leading questions he cites on appeal, thus
forfeiting the claims. The trial court sustained defendant‟s objections to some
leading questions, thus obviating any prejudice. Regarding any asserted leading
question cited on appeal to which the trial court overruled an objection, we see no
abuse of discretion in the court‟s rulings and no prejudice to defendant. We
likewise see no prejudice from any of the leading question claims cited on appeal
that were forfeited for failure to object.
As to the prosecutor‟s asserted misstatements, defendant contends the
prosecutor improperly read passages of Kelley‟s prior testimony to the jury under
the guise of refreshing Kelley‟s recollection. But our review of the record
indicates that the prosecutor followed the proper procedure for refreshing
recollection by having Kelley first review the material silently and then asking him
whether that had refreshed his recollection. (See People v. Parks (1971) 4 Cal.3d
955, 960-961.) There was no misconduct.
Finally, defendant contends the prosecutor misstated the law in two instances
during closing argument. In the first instance, the prosecutor appeared to make the
improper argument that defendant‟s prior felony convictions could be used to
support his motive for the robbery murder. But there was no prejudice to
defendant, because the court sustained a timely defense objection and admonished
the jury that defendant‟s prior felony convictions were admitted, and were to be
considered, solely for the purpose of impeaching his credibility.
In the second instance, defendant contends the prosecutor improperly argued
that the mental state for robbery was the same as that for premeditated murder.
Trial counsel did not object to the prosecutor‟s argument and the claim is forfeited
on appeal. It also fails on the merits. The prosecutor described defendant‟s
intentional act of opening the knife within the context of defendant‟s plan to both
commit a robbery and to eliminate the bartender as a witness by killing him. The
prosecutor focused on defendant‟s intent to use the knife in relation to the
evidence of the nearly decapitated state of the victim in order to argue the
inference that defendant had planned to use the knife not just to rob, but also to
kill the victim.
2. Asserted Unreliability of the Testimony of Kevin Kelley
Defendant contends the testimony of Kevin Kelley was inherently unreliable
and therefore constitutionally insufficient to support defendant‟s conviction,
special circumstance finding, and death sentence. Instead of presenting a
traditional sufficiency of the evidence claim, however, defendant contends that the
trial court should have excluded Kelley‟s testimony as being inherently
improbable.21 (See People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 735 [rejecting
claim].)22 Defendant repeats at length the defense impeachment arguments made
at trial that Kelley‟s testimony was unreliable because it differed in some details
from Kelley‟s previous statements and prior testimony at other proceedings, and
because Kelley received food and lodging money as a protected prosecution
The impeachment arguments that defendant repeats against Kelley involve
simple conflicts in the evidence that were for the jury to resolve. (See People v.
Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 736.) Of course, “it is not a proper appellate
function to reassess the credibility of the witnesses.” (People v. Jones (1990) 51
Cal.3d 294, 314-315.) To the extent defendant also argues that Kelley‟s testimony
was inherently incredible, we reject that too. “ „ “To warrant the rejection of
statements given by a witness who has been believed by the [trier of fact], there
must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be
apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.” ‟ ” (People v. Barnes
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 306.) Defendant fails to make such a showing.
21 Although couched as an insufficiency of the evidence claim, defendant focuses
exclusively on Kelley‟s testimony, which was the main, but not the exclusive,
basis of the prosecutor‟s case. As noted above, defendant‟s recorded statement
and his own testimony also placed him as one of the last two people to see the
victim before the robbery, and prosecution witnesses Moody and McCurry also
testified that defendant admitted he committed the murder. Defendant makes
separate claims below that Moody and McCurry were also inherently unreliable.
22 Defendant notes that defense counsel unsuccessfully made a pretrial motion to
exclude the testimony of both Kelley and Moody as being “inherently unreliable.”
After hearings at which Kelley and Moody and the police officers who initially
arrested them testified, the court denied the motion, stating that the testimony of
Kelley and Moody was relevant and material, that they were competent to testify,
and that the question of their credibility or reliability was for the jury.
3. Other Asserted Errors Related to Kelley’s Testimony
a. Instructional Errors
(1) CALJIC No. 2.13
Defendant contends that the court erred in instructing pursuant to CALJIC
No. 2.13 on prior consistent or inconsistent statements as evidence.23 He
complains that only telling the jurors that they could consider prior inconsistent
statements for their “truth,” but not telling them they could also consider them for
their “falsity,” unfairly skewed the jury‟s credibility determinations in the
prosecutor‟s favor. However, we have previously rejected such claims by noting
that “the instruction in no way directs the jury to accept prior statements as the
truth; it merely covers the hearsay exceptions provided in Evidence Code sections
1235 and 1236, in a neutral fashion.” (People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269,
1293, citing People v. Wilson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1, 20-21.)24
(2) CALJIC No. 3.11
Defendant contends the trial court erred at both the guilt and special
circumstance trials by instructing the jury with an inadequate version of CALJIC
No. 3.11. At the time the court gave the instruction at defendant‟s guilt phase trial
in 1988, CALJIC No. 3.11 read: “A defendant cannot be found guilty based upon
the testimony of an accomplice unless such testimony is corroborated by other
23 “Evidence that on some former occasion, a witness made a statement or
statements that were inconsistent or consistent with his testimony in this trial, may
be considered by you not only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the
witness, but also as evidence of the truth of the facts as stated by the witness on
such former occasion.”
24 Defendant also contends the admission of the prior statements themselves
violated the confrontation clause. But, as defendant acknowledges, there is no
confrontation clause problem when the witness was available, as was Kelley, for
cross-examination. (See Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 60, fn. 9.)
evidence that tends to connect such defendant with the commission of the
offense.” (Ibid. (5th ed. 1988).) In People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 214,
we held that the corroboration requirement applied to both the in-court testimony
and the out-of-court statements of accomplices. The 1990 revision of CALJIC
No. 3.11 (1990 rev.) (5th ed. 1988) added the following optional paragraph:
“Testimony of an accomplice includes any out-of-court statement purportedly
made by an accomplice received for the purpose of proving that what the
accomplice stated was true.”
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to give the second optional
paragraph at both defendant‟s guilt trial and his special circumstance retrial. As to
the defendant‟s guilt trial, defendant concedes that CALJIC No. 3.11 was not
amended until after that trial. As to defendant‟s special circumstance retrial, this
trial did occur after the 1990 revision to CALJIC No. 3.11. However, we have
held that a trial court has no sua sponte duty to modify the instructions on
accomplice corroboration to indicate that they apply both to in-court and out-of-
court statements. (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 160-61; People v.
Andrews, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 214-215.) Defendant was required to request the
additional paragraph, which he did not do. (People v. Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at
Moreover, even if we assume the trial court erred in not including the
optional clarifying paragraph, such error was harmless. Kelley‟s credibility was a
central issue in both of defendant‟s trials. Defense counsel exhaustively raised the
inconsistencies between Kelley‟s in-court testimony and out-of-court statements.
Under these circumstances, the jury was already well aware that it was required to
scrutinize all of Kelley‟s statements, including especially his out-of-court
statements. It is therefore not reasonably probable that the jury would have
reached a result more favorable to defendant if they had been instructed with the
additional instruction defendant urges. (People v. Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p.
161, citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
b. Improper Bolstering of Kelley’s Testimony by Other
Defendant contends the prosecution improperly bolstered the testimony of
Kevin Kelley by calling three witnesses who had been members of the district
attorney‟s office at the time of Kelley‟s arrest in connection with the Golden West
murder: then Alameda County Superior Court Judge Joanne Parrilli, Deputy
District Attorney Jerry Curtis, and Deputy District Attorney Angela Backers. As
recounted above, Parrilli, Curtis, and Backers all testified that the district
attorney‟s office viewed Kelley as a witness rather than a participant in the
robbery murder at the Golden West Bar, and that the office never made any
promises of immunity to Kelley. As recounted above, the prosecution called these
witnesses in its rebuttal case in response to the defense argument that the district
attorney‟s office promised Kelley immunity from prosecution in exchange for his
testimony. Defendant acknowledges that the prosecutor was entitled to present
evidence that Kelley was not offered immunity from prosecution, but argues that
the testimony went beyond that to become irrelevant and improper vouching for
Kelley‟s version of events at the Golden West. We disagree. Defense counsel‟s
argument was not only that Kelley had been offered immunity but that the
prosecutor could have prosecuted Kelley as an accomplice but agreed not to do so
in exchange for his testimony. The testimony of Parrilli, Curtis, and Backers
included the district attorney‟s office‟s assessment of Kelley‟s involvement in the
crime, which was that he was a witness, not a participant. The challenged
testimony therefore was relevant to rebutting the defense argument that the
prosecution had leverage over Kelley because it could have prosecuted him as an
accessory in the robbery murder.
4. Asserted Unreliability of the Testimony of Thomas Moody and
Defendant contends that the testimony of Thomas Moody and Leonard
McCurry was constitutionally insufficient to support defendant‟s conviction,
special circumstance finding, and death sentence. Defendant questions Moody‟s
motives and renews the arguments he made at trial that Moody testified falsely in
exchange for the food and lodging benefits he received as a protected witness, and
also in exchange for the prosecutor‟s lenient treatment of various criminal charges
(unrelated to the capital crime) pending against him. As for McCurry, defendant
renews his argument that McCurry testified falsely in exchange for the
prosecution‟s arranging to have him serve out the remainder of his sentence in a
prison closer to his family.
The jury heard all this evidence bearing on the credibility of Moody and
McCurry, and, apparently, still chose to believe them. As we have noted, “it is not
a proper appellate function to reassess the credibility of the witnesses.” (People v.
Jones, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pp. 314-315.) “ „ “To warrant the rejection of
statements given by a witness who has been believed by the [trier of fact], there
must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be
apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.” ‟ ” (People v. Barnes,
supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 306.) Defendant fails to make such a showing.
5. Asserted Carter Error
Defendant contends the trial court committed error under People v. Carter
(1957) 48 Cal.2d 737 when it allowed the prosecutor to present, over objection,
the testimony of Moody‟s attorney, Richard Humphrey, in rebuttal. As recounted,
ante at page 19, Attorney Humphrey testified he did not know Moody was a
witness in a homicide case when he represented Moody on various misdemeanor
and traffic charges, much less made any representations to the court or the
prosecutor for leniency based on that fact.
In People v. Carter, supra, 48 Cal.2d 737, we disapproved of the
prosecutorial tactic of intentionally withholding crucial evidence properly
belonging in the case-in-chief to take unfair advantage of the defendant. (People
v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1211.) But Carter is inapplicable here. We
have applied Carter only to “ „crucial‟ ” or “ „material‟ ” evidence [that] properly
belonged only in the case-in-chief. (Bunyard, at p. 1212.) Here, the testimony of
attorney Humphrey was not evidence that by itself established guilt or was directly
probative of the crimes charged. (Ibid.) Rather, it was collateral evidence bearing
on Moody‟s credibility.
Defendant also contends that Humphrey‟s testimony should have been
excluded on the grounds of relevance. Defendant never objected on this ground
below, and the claim is therefore forfeited. Moreover, the claim is meritless.
Humphrey‟s testimony was relevant to the defense argument that Moody had lied
in his testimony in exchange for leniency by the prosecutor. The fact that
Moody‟s attorney was unaware of Moody‟s status as a witness and never made
any appeals for leniency based thereon was relevant to that issue.
6. Asserted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Based on Conflict of
Defendant contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of
counsel based on a conflict of interest because his counsel, the Alameda County
Public Defender‟s Office, had previously represented prosecution witness Moody,
and the fact of this previous representation precluded trial counsel from
impeaching Moody concerning the prior arrest in which the office represented
him. We conclude that, even if a conflict of interest existed, defendant was not
prejudiced because defense counsel was able to impeach Moody with numerous
other similar criminal convictions.
During pretrial motions in the first trial, defense counsel informed the court
that the public defender‟s office had represented Moody in a hit-and-run case. A
warrant was still outstanding for Moody for this incident when he was taken into
custody by the police and gave statements about defendant‟s involvement in the
capital crime. Defense counsel stated she had not reviewed the public defender‟s
file on the case, but she looked at the court file, which indicated that Moody
received three years‟ probation and was ordered to pay restitution, which defense
counsel considered a standard disposition in a hit-and-run case. She stated she
would not argue that Moody‟s sentence in the hit-and-run case was related to his
being a prosecution witness. But she proposed that she be allowed to cross-
examine Moody about the facts of the case and particularly about the fact that,
although there was an warrant out for his arrest at the time he was taken into
custody, he was released after he gave a statement to the police incriminating
defendant. The prosecutor opposed this and indicated that if the court allowed her
to proceed that way, the prosecutor would let the jury know that defense counsel
was attacking a witness concerning a case in which her office had represented him.
The trial court ruled that no reference to the hit-and-run case should be made
by either defense counsel or the prosecutor. The trial court was concerned that
allowing defense counsel to examine Moody about the case would be
impermissible as a conflict of interest. The court engaged in a balancing test
under Evidence Code section 352 and determined it would be prejudicial to the
public defender‟s office to appear to be in a conflict of interest, and that, by
extension, it would be prejudicial to defendant if defense counsel were seen as
doing so. The court noted that defense counsel was proposing to impeach Moody
with 16 other criminal cases, and that there was another warrant out for Moody‟s
arrest for another crime when he was taken into custody, which defense counsel
could raise. 25
“ „The right to effective assistance of counsel, secured by the Sixth
Amendment to the federal Constitution, and article I, section 15 of the California
Constitution, includes the right to representation that is free from conflicts of
interest.‟ ” (People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 673, quoting People v. Cox
(2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 948, both disapproved on another ground in People v.
Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22.) We agree defendant has shown “ „an
actual conflict of interest‟ ” here, that is, “a conflict that affected counsel‟s
performance — as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties.” (Mickens
v. Taylor (2002) 535 U.S. 162, 171, italics omitted.) Because of the conflict of
interest created by the public defender‟s office‟s representation of Moody in the
hit and run case, defense counsel was precluded from impeaching Moody with that
case. Defendant contends that because of defense counsel‟s actual conflict of
interest, prejudice must be presumed. We disagree. In People v. Rundle (2008) 43
Cal.4th 76, 168-176 (disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin, supra,
45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22), we considered whether a showing of an actual
conflict of interest necessarily results in a presumption of prejudice, and concluded
that it does not. (Rundle, at p. 173.) Rather, “[o]nly when the court concludes
25 After defendant‟s first trial, and prior to his second trial (the special
circumstance retrial) the Alameda County Public Defender‟s Office filed a
declaration that a conflict existed for them, and private counsel were appointed for
his second trial.
that the possibility of prejudice and the corresponding difficulty in demonstrating
such prejudice are sufficiently great compared to other more customary
assessments of the detrimental effects of deficient performance by defense
counsel, must the presumption be applied in order to safeguard the defendant‟s
fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth
Amendment.” (Ibid.) Here there was no possibility of great prejudice arising
from the conflict nor was there any difficulty in assessing its detrimental effect.
Its effect was limited to defense counsel‟s being precluded from using one
additional criminal case to impeach Moody. Because the presumption of prejudice
is inapplicable here, we apply the usual second prong of the test for deficient
performance of counsel, namely, whether there was “ „ “a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel‟s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.” ‟ ” (Id. at pp. 169-170, quoting Mickens v. Taylor, supra, at
p. 166, quoting Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694.) We conclude
there was no reasonable probability of a different result if defense counsel had
impeached Moody about the one additional case. Defense counsel was not
precluded from, and in fact did proceed to, impeach Moody with his numerous
other criminal violations and with the fact that when he was questioned and later
released by the police there was a warrant out for his arrest in another case.
7. Asserted Trial Court Error in Denying Defendant’s Request for a
Jury Visit to the Area of the Crime
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the defense request for a
jury visit to the area surrounding the Golden West Bar. Defense counsel proposed
that the jury go to 12th Street to view what they could see from the various
positions Kelley described in his testimony. In considering the request, the trial
court discussed the difficulties of recreating the exact conditions under which
Kelley made his observations four years previously, and noted that street lighting
may have changed significantly in the intervening time. In response, defense
counsel proposed that the visit could occur in the daytime, arguing that main issue
for the defense was distance, not lighting. The trial court denied the request.
Section 1119 provides: “When, in the opinion of the court, it is proper that
the jury should view the place in which the offense is charged to have been
committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, . . . it may order the jury
to be conducted in a body . . . to the place . . . .” “A court‟s ruling on a party‟s
motion for a jury view is reviewed for abuse of discretion,” that is, “whether the
court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd
manner.” (People v. Lawley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 158.) “ „When the purpose of
the view is to test the veracity of a witness‟s testimony about [his or her]
observations . . . , the trial court may properly consider whether the conditions for
the jury view will be substantially the same as those under which the witness made
the observations, whether there are other means of testing the veracity of the
witness‟s testimony, and practical difficulties in conducting a jury view.‟ ” (Ibid.)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request. While
practical difficulties did not particularly militate against the request (the area in
question being close to the courthouse), the other factors did. As the court noted,
it was uncertain how close the conditions the jury would have encountered would
have been to those under which Kelley made his observations four years earlier.
Defendant contends that trial counsel‟s alternative request that the visit be
conducted during daylight hours resolved any concerns in this area, but we
disagree. Defendant presents no authority that lighting and distance are
completely independent factors in determining visibility. Common sense
suggests, rather, that visibility is affected by both lighting and distance. Neither
does defendant produce any authority that whatever Kelley saw under the original
conditions would necessarily be as apparent under other conditions. It is possible,
for example, that the glint of a knife blade under a street light at night could stand
out more prominently than it would from the same distance in bright daylight. In
any event, alternative means of testing Kelley‟s credibility were provided at trial
by various witnesses, including two investigators from the public defender‟s office
(recounted, ante, at p. 16), who described, diagrammed, and photographed the
8. Asserted Erroneous Exclusion of Evidence of Hollowhornbear’s
Defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding evidence of
Hollowhornbear‟s military training. Outside the presence of the jury, defense
counsel moved to admit Hollowhornbear‟s Army records to support the defense
theory that Hollowhornbear, not defendant, killed the victim. The trial court
observed that such records would be relevant if they reflected that Hollowhornbear
had some training with the use of a knife or bayonet. The records, however, only
indicated that he had received some sort of military training and that he had
received a marksmanship badge for his skill with a rifle. There was no indication
he had received training with a knife or bayonet. Defense counsel sought to
supplement the military records with other documents describing the composition
of basic combat training in the years that Hollowhornbear was in the service, and
she made an offer of proof that she could call a witness to help in interpreting
those documents. The trial court rejected the records and the offer of proof on the
grounds that they would be unduly time consuming and would create substantial
danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.
We see no abuse of discretion. The offered records did not indicate that
Hollowhornbear had received training with a knife or bayonet. Defense counsel
made an offer of proof to produce a witness to testify about the kinds of training
that soldiers of that era generally received. But, as the trial court observed, such
testimony would not have established what training Hollowhornbear actually
received. It was well within the discretion of the court to exclude
Hollowhornbear‟s military records and the speculative testimony required to
explain their possible relevance because presenting this evidence would have been
time consuming and confusing to the jury.
9. Asserted Failure to Instruct Fully with CALJIC No. 3.31
Defendant contends the court inadequately instructed on the specific intent
required for felony murder. Defendant contends that because he was charged with
felony murder, the court had a sua sponte duty to give CALJIC No. 3.31 on the
concurrence of act and specific intent, and to either refer to other instructions that
state that felony murder requires the specific intent to commit the underlying
felony of robbery, or to specifically spell out this requirement in the instruction.
The court gave the following instruction based on CALJIC No. 3.31, which
defendant contends was inadequate or misleading: “In the crime charged in Count
One of the Information, namely Murder, there must exist a union or joint operation
of act or conduct and a certain mental state in the mind of the perpetrator, and
unless such mental state exists, the crime to which it relates is not committed. [¶]
In the crime of Murder, the necessary mental state is to harbor malice
aforethought, except in Felony-Murder, where the law imputes malice to a person
who kills in perpetration of robbery or an attempt to perpetrate a robbery.”
The essence of defendant‟s argument is that the court‟s definition of felony
murder in this instruction explained what felony murder is not, instead of defining
what it is. But, as defendant acknowledges, the court elsewhere correctly defined
first degree felony murder through CALJIC No. 8.21 (4th ed. 1979), which stated,
in pertinent part: “The unlawful killing of a human being, whether intentional,
unintentional, or accidental, which occurs as a result of the commission of or an
attempt to commit the crime of robbery, and where there was in the mind of the
perpetrator the specific intent to commit such crime, is murder of the first degree.”
Defendant maintains that the definition of felony murder in CALJIC No. 8.21 says
nothing about the concurrence of act and specific intent. But, as we have noted, in
determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the instructions as a
whole. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 360.) Taken together, the trial
court‟s giving of CALJIC Nos. 3.31 and 8.21 adequately instructed the jury on the
concurrence of act and intent, and the specific intent required for felony murder.
10. Asserted Erroneous Refusal to Give Special Jury Instruction on
After-acquired Felonious Intent
Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing defendant‟s request to
give the following special jury instruction on after-acquired felonious intent: “The
prosecution must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent to commit
the crime of robbery arose before or during the commission of the acts which
resulted in the death of the victim. If you have a reasonable doubt that the
defendant formed the intent to commit robbery before or during the commission of
such acts, you may not convict him of first degree murder based on the felony
The trial court rejected the proposed instruction, believing it was covered by
the following jury instruction the court gave based on CALJIC No. 8.79 on the
requisite specific intent to commit the underlying crime in felony murder: “Before
the defendant may be found guilty of an unlawful killing of a human being as a
result of the commission or attempt to commit the crime of robbery, you must take
all the evidence into consideration and determine therefore if at the time of the
commission or attempt to commit such crime the defendant did not form the
specific intent to commit such crime. [¶] If, from all the evidence, you have a
reasonable doubt whether the defendant formed such specific intent, you must give
the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find that he did not have such specific
The trial court‟s instruction is not a model of clarity and it is arguable
whether it adequately addressed the issue of when the intent to steal had to be
formed in relation to the murder.26 However, we need not reach that issue since
the trial court also instructed with CALJIC Nos. 9.40 (robbery defined) and 8.21
(felony murder). As we have stated, “CALJIC Nos. 9.40 and 8.21 together
„ “adequately cover the issue of the time of the formation of the intent to steal.” ‟ ”
(People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 112, quoting People v. Hughes, supra, 27
Cal.4th at p. 359.) Because the issue was adequately covered by the existing
instructions, the trial court did not err in refusing to give a duplicative special
instruction. (See, e.g., People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1231; People v.
Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659-660.)
11. Asserted Failure to Instruct on Theft as a Lesser Included Offense
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct on theft as a
lesser included offense of robbery. As we conclude below, because there was no
substantial evidence supporting theft, the trial court was not required to instruct on
At trial, the defense and the prosecution presented polar opposite theories
about whether defendant had participated in a robbery. The prosecution theory
was that defendant had formed the intent to rob the bar prior to fatally stabbing the
26 As defendant notes, the court‟s instruction is based on CALJIC No. 8.79
(4th ed. 1979), which, in its original form, instructs the jury on determining
whether diminished capacity prevents a defendant from forming the requisite
specific intent to commit the underlying felony in a charge of felony murder.
bartender, and that the attack was motivated to facilitate the robbery and to
eliminate the bartender as a witness. The prosecution theory was supported by the
fact that a substantial amount of money and some liquor bottles had been taken
from the bar, by Kelley‟s testimony that defendant tried to enlist Kelley in the
robbery, and by Kelley‟s and Moody‟s testimony that defendant admitted he
committed the robbery and murder. In contrast, the defense theory, supported by
defendant‟s testimony, was that defendant had nothing to do with the robbery or
murder. Defendant testified that he at no point had the intention to steal or rob
from the bartender, and he denied taking any money or liquor bottles from the bar.
Defendant testified he fled the bar when Hollowhornbear pulled a knife on the
bartender after the bartender tried to prevent Hollowhornbear from taking a bottle
from behind the bar. The defense theory was that Hollowhornbear killed the
bartender and then stole the cash and alcohol.
“A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to have his or her jury
determine „every material issue presented by the evidence‟ and this includes the
right, where appropriate, to have the jury instructed on lesser included offenses.”
(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 513.) “Theft is a lesser included offense
of robbery.” (Id. at p. 514.) Accordingly, even in the absence of a request, the
trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense of
robbery if the evidence has raised “a question as to whether all of the elements of
robbery were present and if there was evidence that would have justified a
conviction of the lesser offense.” (Ibid.)
Defendant contends that the trial court should have instructed about theft
because the jury could have found that defendant stole from the bar. Defendant
argues the jury could have accepted most of defendant‟s testimony but disbelieved
defendant‟s testimony that he had not taken any of the money. Defendant
contends that the jury could have concluded there was a fight instigated by
Hollowhornbear‟s attempt to grab a bottle from the bar (as defendant described)
but that (contrary to defendant‟s testimony) defendant did participate in the fight
and later decided to take some money.
The problem with defendant‟s alternate scenario is that neither side presented
substantial evidence to support it. As discussed, defendant presented no evidence
that he decided to steal only after the murder; indeed, he categorically maintained
he never took anything. Defendant now contends that the evidence the prosecutor
presented that money and alcohol had been taken from the bar could have been
considered by the jury, in isolation, to support the conclusion that defendant
engaged in a theft. But there was no reason why the jury would have rejected the
prosecution‟s evidence that defendant committed a robbery. (People v. Abilez,
supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 514.) As we have stated, “ „if there is no proof, other than
an unexplainable rejection of the prosecution‟s evidence, that the offense was less
than that charged, such instructions [on lesser included offenses] shall not be
given.‟ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063.) Here based
on the evidence presented, the jury was left with “an all-or-nothing choice”: the
jury could either find that defendant had committed the robbery murder or it could
find that he had committed no crime. (People v. Abilez, supra, 41 Cal.4th at
p. 515.) There was no substantial evidence that defendant formed an intent to steal
only after he or Hollowhornbear fatally stabbed the victim, and thus no factual
predicate for instructing the jury on theft as a lesser included offense. (Id. at
12. Asserted Error in Instructing with CALJIC No. 4.22 (Definition of
Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing with CALJIC No. 4.22
(1981 rev.) (4th ed. 1979), which states: “Intoxication of a person is voluntary if it
results from the willing use of any intoxicating liquor, drug or other substance,
knowing that it is capable of an intoxicating effect, or when he willingly assumes
the risk of that effect. [¶] Voluntary intoxication includes the voluntary ingestion,
injecting or taking by any other means of any intoxicating liquor, drug or other
substance.” Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 4.22 conflicted with CALJIC
No. 4.21, which the court also gave, and which states that evidence of intoxication
can create a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant had the required specific
intent for a charged specific intent crime.27 Defendant contends the definition of
voluntary intoxication in CALJIC No. 4.22, with its reference to “willingly
assum[ing] the risk” of the effect of intoxication, would lead the jury to
misunderstand or ignore CALJIC No. 4.21. We have previously rejected such a
claim and do so again here. (People v. Harris, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 1312-1313;
People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 38-40.)
27 The court instructed with CALJIC No. 4.21, as modified: “In the crime of
Murder, of which the defendant is accused in Count One of the information, a
necessary element is the existence in the mind of the defendant of the mental state
of malice aforethought, except in Felony Murder. [¶] In the crime of Robbery, of
which defendant is accused in Count Two of the Information, a necessary element
is the existence in the mind of the defendant of the specific intent to permanently
deprive the person of the property. [¶] If the evidence shows that the defendant
was intoxicated at the time of the alleged offense, the jury should consider his
state of intoxication in determining if the defendant had such specific intent or
mental state. [¶] If from all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt whether the
defendant formed such specific intent or mental state as to either count, you must
give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find that he did not have such
specific intent or mental state.”
13. Asserted Error in Instructions on Consciousness of Guilt
Defendant contends the court should not have given two instructions on
consciousness of guilt, CALJIC No. 2.06, on efforts to suppress evidence, and
CALJIC No. 2.52, on flight after crime, because they were repetitive of other jury
instructions about circumstantial evidence, were argumentative, and allowed the
jury to draw irrational inferences. As defendant acknowledges, we have rejected
similar claims in the past, and we do so again here. (People v. Rundle, supra,
43 Cal.4th at pp. 77-78 [CALJIC No. 2.52]; People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at
p. 348 [CALJIC No. 2.06].)
14. Asserted Error in Instructing with CALJIC No. 2.51
(Consideration of Motive)
Defendant contends the court should not have given CALJIC No. 2.51, which
allows the jury to consider the presence or absence of motive as a circumstance in
the case that may establish guilt or innocence. Defendant contends this instruction
is unconstitutional because it allows the jury to determine guilt based on motive
alone, and lessens the prosecutor‟s burden of proof. As defendant acknowledges,
we have rejected similar claims in the past, and we do so again here. (People v.
Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 314; People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704,
15. Unconstitutionality of Jury Instructions Assertedly Affecting the
Reasonable Doubt Standard
Defendant contends that several standard CALJIC instructions violated his
right, under In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364, not to be convicted of a
crime on a standard of less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant
acknowledges we previously have rejected similar challenges to these instructions,
but requests we change our position. We decline to do so and summarily reaffirm
our previous holdings upholding the constitutionality of the following instructions:
CALJIC No. 290 (People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 221); CALJIC
Nos. 2.01, 2.02, 8.83, and 8.83.1 (People v. Nakahara (2003) 30 Cal.4th 705, 713-
714; People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1139); CALJIC Nos. 1.00 and 2.51
(People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1139); CALJIC No. 2.21.1 (People v.
Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1059, fn. 15); CALJIC Nos. 2.21.2, 2.22 (People
v. Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 714-715; People v. Guerra, supra, 37
Cal.4th at pp. 1138-1139); CALJIC No. 2.27 (People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th
877, 941; People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 697); and CALJIC No. 8.20
(People v. Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 715).
16. Instruction on First Degree Murder
Defendant contends the trial court erroneously instructed on first degree
murder because, while the information charged him with first degree murder in
violation of section 187 (malice murder), it did not, he contends, cite the actual
first degree murder statute (section 189) or allege the facts necessary for
establishing first degree murder. As defendant acknowledges, however, we have
consistently rejected such arguments and have concluded that a defendant may be
convicted of first degree murder even though the indictment or information
charges only murder with malice in violation of section 187. (People v.
Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 165-66; People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th
at pp. 368-370; People v. Witt (1915) 170 Cal. 104, 107-108.) Defendant also
contends that Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, prohibits defendant‟s
conviction on an uncharged crime. His reliance on Apprendi, however, is
misplaced because he was not convicted of an “uncharged crime.” (People v.
Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 222.)
17. Failure to Instruct on Unanimity for Theory of First Degree
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it
was required to agree unanimously as to whether defendant had committed a
premeditated murder or a first degree felony murder. As defendant acknowledges,
however, we previously have rejected the claim that a jury cannot return a valid
verdict of first degree murder without first agreeing unanimously as to whether the
defendant committed a premeditated murder or a felony murder. (People v.
Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 712-713; People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th
18. Failure to Give Dewberry Instruction, CALJIC No. 8.71
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to give CALJIC No. 8.71,
which instructs the jury that if they unanimously agree defendant committed
murder but have a reasonable doubt whether murder was of the first or of the
second degree, they should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and return a
verdict of second degree murder. We conclude the omitted instruction was
adequately covered by the other instructions the court gave.
After the court finished instructing the jury, it asked counsel whether all the
instructions it had agreed to give to the jury were in fact given. Defense counsel
noted the omission of CALJIC No. 8.71, one of the so-called Dewberry
instructions (People v. Dewberry (1959) 51 Cal.2d 548). The court reviewed the
instructions it had given related to Dewberry and lesser offenses. The trial court
had instructed with CALJIC No. 8.70 on the duty of the jury as to the degree of
murder, 28 and pursuant to CALJIC No. 8.72 on doubt as to murder or
manslaughter, 29 but not with CALJIC No. 8.71 on doubt as to first or second
degree murder. The trial court also gave an instruction pursuant to CALJIC
No. 17.10, which stated, inter alia: “If the jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged and it unanimously so
finds, it may convict him of any lesser offense if the jury is convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is guilty of such lesser offense. [¶] The offense of
murder in the second degree is a lesser offense of the offense charged in Count I.
[¶] The offense of voluntary manslaughter is a lesser offense to the offense
charged in Count I.” After considering the other instructions it had given, the
court concluded that the content of CALJIC No. 8.71 was adequately covered.
We held in People v. Dewberry that “a criminal defendant is entitled to the
benefit of a jury‟s reasonable doubt with respect to all crimes with lesser degrees
or related or included offenses.” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216,
1262, citing People v. Dewberry, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 556.) CALJIC Nos. 8.70,
8.71, and 8.72 instruct the jury as to the degrees of murder and this principle from
Dewberry. CALJIC No. 8.70 describes the two degrees of murder and instructs
the jury, if they find defendant guilty of murder, to state in the verdict the degree
of which they are finding him guilty. CALJIC Nos. 8.71 and 8.72 apply the
28 “Murder is classified into two degrees. If you should find the defendant guilty
of murder, you must determine and state in your verdict whether you find the
murder to be of the first or second degree.” (CALJIC No. 8.70 (5th ed. 1988.)
29 “If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimously agree that
the killing was unlawful, but you unanimously agree that you have a reasonable
doubt whether the crime is murder or manslaughter, you must give the defendant
the benefit of that doubt and find it to be manslaughter rather than murder.”
Dewberry benefit of the doubt principle to deciding between first and second
degree murder and between murder and manslaughter, respectively. It is true that
the trial court omitted CALJIC No. 8.71 with its specific application of the
Dewberry principle to second degree murder. But the court instructed with
CALJIC No. 17.10, which stated the general principle that if the jury was not
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of first degree
murder (Count One) it could convict him of a lesser offense if it was convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of that lesser offense. CALJIC No.
17.10 then specified the two available lesser offenses as either second degree
murder or voluntary manslaughter. This instruction told the jury that both of these
two lesser offenses were conclusions the jury could reach if it had a reasonable
doubt whether defendant was guilty of first degree murder. Furthermore, two
other instructions the court gave, a modified version of CALJIC No. 8.79 on
felony murder and felonious intent (ante, p. 57) and a modified version of CALJIC
No. 4.21 on voluntary intoxication and specific intent (ante, p. 61, fn. 27) also
instructed the jury on the general principle that if, from all the evidence, it had a
reasonable doubt whether defendant formed a specific intent or mental state, it
must give him the benefit of that doubt and find he did not have that specific intent
or mental state. Thus, despite the court‟s omission of CALJIC No. 8.71, the jury
would have understood that the Dewberry benefit of the doubt principle was
equally applicable both to the choice between first and second degree murder, and
between murder and manslaughter.
B. Second Trial : Special Circumstance Retrial (Guilt Phase)
1. Asserted Witt Error
Defendant contends the trial court erred in excusing 10 prospective jurors
based on their views concerning the death penalty. As we explain, we conclude
the trial court did not err in these rulings.
a. Witt Standard
The federal constitutional standard for dismissing a prospective juror for
cause based on his or her views of capital punishment is “ „[w]hether the juror‟s
views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a
juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.‟ ” (Uttecht v. Brown (2007)
[551 U.S. 1, __] 127 S.Ct. 2218, 2223, citing Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S.
412, 424.) Applying Witt, we have stated: “ „ “ „[a] prospective juror is properly
excluded if he or she is unable to conscientiously consider all of the sentencing
alternatives, including the death penalty where appropriate.‟ [Citation.]” In
addition, “ „[o]n appeal, we will uphold the trial court‟s ruling if it is fairly
supported by the record, accepting as binding the trial court‟s determination as to
the prospective juror‟s true state of mind when the prospective juror has made
statements that are conflicting or ambiguous.‟ [Citations.]” ‟ ” (People v. Blair
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 743, quoting People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th, 900,
b. Asserted Error based on the Court’s Description of the Case
In its individual voir dire of the prospective jurors, the trial court used the
following procedure: First, the trial court asked the prospective juror about his or
her general feelings about imposing the death penalty. Next, the trial court
presented a brief summary of the facts of the case, and asked the prospective juror
whether he or she would be able to apply the death penalty for this particular kind
of case. The court gave the following description of the case: Defendant and two
other individuals went into the Golden West Bar; there was an altercation or
confrontation and the bartender was robbed and fatally injured by having his throat
cut almost to the point of decapitation. The court did not specify whether
defendant was the actual perpetrator of the murder, but it informed prospective
jurors that the previous jury had found defendant guilty of first degree murder and
robbery, and had found he personally used a knife during the robbery and murder,
and personally inflicted great bodily injury during the robbery.
Defendant contends that because the trial court‟s sketch of the crime did not
specify that defendant was the actual killer or shared the killer‟s intent to kill, the
sketch did not describe a death-eligible killing for this Carlos window case.30
Defendant further asserts that, in order to properly convey the gravity of the crime
and evaluate prospective jurors‟ willingness to apply the death penalty, the trial
court should have specifically told prospective jurors that defendant personally
committed the murder. Defendant contends that the trial court‟s assertedly
misleading “watered-down” account of the facts of the case caused Prospective
Jurors F. S., F. W., H. S., and D. A., who had reasonable reservations about the
death penalty, to express their unwillingness to apply it in this case. As we
conclude below, we reject defendant‟s contentions and uphold the trial court‟s
dismissal of these jurors.
30 The so-called Carlos window is the period between Carlos v. Superior Court
(1983) 35 Cal.3d 131 and its overruling in People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d
1104, during which time intent to kill was an element of the robbery-murder
(a) Prospective Juror F. S.
In his questionnaire, F. S. wrote: “As a Jew, I am opposed to the death
penalty.” Asked by the court about this statement, he stated that it was “probably
true” that he would never vote for the death penalty. After the court explained
aggravating and mitigating factors, and asked him whether he had any feelings
about either the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole that he
thought might prevent him from making a choice between those two penalties, he
stated that he had “very strong biases about the death penalty.” The trial court
then stated the concise version of the facts of the crime, as described, ante, at page
67. F. S. asked whether defendant was “the perpetrator of the crime or an
accessory,” to which the trial court answered: “Well, that‟s for the jury to decide.
That‟s what you are going to have to decide in this case.” The trial court asked
F. S. whether the case as described came up to his “level of expectation” as to
what a death penalty case should be, and he stated that it did not.31 Defense
counsel sought to ask F. S. whether believing beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant was the actual perpetrator and not an accessory would allow him to
keep both penalties in mind. The court sustained the prosecutor‟s objection to this
question on the ground that it would be asking the prospective juror to prejudge
the evidence. The court then sustained the prosecution‟s challenge for cause.
31 The trial court used the word “expectation” as a shorthand for a prospective
juror‟s willingness to consider imposing the death penalty based on the sketch of
the facts presented, not as a suggestion that the juror prejudge the penalty phase.
The trial court made this clear by stating to this prospective juror, “Now, I‟m not
asking you how you will vote in this case because you haven‟t heard all the rest of
the evidence.” The trial court gave similar explanations to the other prospective
(b) Prospective Juror F. W.
The court asked F. W. whether he thought he could personally ever vote to
execute another human being and he answered: “The possibility is yes, but I would
say that‟s very remote.” Following further questioning by the court, F. W. stated
that he could vote to execute someone in “an appropriate case,” but went on to add
that he had never heard of nor could he imagine a case in which he felt someone
should receive the death penalty. The court recounted its description of the case,
and asked him whether he could consider death as a possible penalty in this case.
F. W. indicated that, based on those facts, he would say no to the death penalty.
The defense posed no questions, and the trial court sustained the prosecutor‟s
challenge for cause.
(c) Prospective Juror H. S.
The court asked H. S. whether she could ever vote to execute another human
being, to which she answered she did not think she could. After further
questioning, she stated that if she was being asked to try Hitler she could vote for
the death penalty, but in “all reasonable circumstances” she would vote no on the
death penalty. Although she thought she was “not so rigid” that she would never
under any circumstances vote for death, she was “not very prone to do it.” The
court described the case, and asked her whether both penalties were still open to
her. She indicated that the case as described did not have the gravity that would
justify the death penalty. The defense posed no questions, and the trial court
sustained the prosecutor‟s challenge for cause.
(d) Prospective Juror D. A.
D. A. described her general feeling that she was more inclined towards life in
prison and that “[i]t would have to be a very extreme thing” for her to vote for the
death penalty. The court described the case, and asked her whether both penalties
were still open to her. She stated she had eliminated the death penalty as a
possible punishment because the case did not come up to her expectations of what
a death penalty case would be. The defense posed no questions, and the trial court
sustained the prosecutor‟s challenge for cause.
We reject defendant‟s initial general contention that the trial court‟s
description of the case was insufficient to support a death penalty under Carlos v.
Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d 131, for which intent to kill is an element of the
robbery-murder special circumstance. The trial court explained to the prospective
jurors that they would not even reach the penalty phase unless they found true the
special circumstance that defendant committed “an intentional killing during the
commission of a robbery.”
Turning to defendant‟s challenge of the dismissals of Prospective Jurors
F. S., F. W., H. S., and D. A., we conclude the trial court‟s rulings were fairly
supported by the record. (People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 743.) All of
these jurors indicated their inability to apply the death penalty in the type of case
described to them, but to the extent their responses can be seen as conflicting or
ambiguous we accept the trial court‟s determination of each juror‟s true state of
We also reject defendant‟s contention that the trial court‟s assertedly
misleading description of the case caused these jurors to express an unwillingness
to impose the death penalty. First, this argument is speculative; we can only judge
the views of prospective jurors based on what they actually said, not on what they
might have said under other circumstances. Second, we reject defendant‟s
contention that the court‟s description was misleading. As we have stated, death-
qualification voir dire must avoid two extremes: on the one hand, it must not be so
abstract that it fails to identify those jurors whose death penalty views would
prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties; on the other hand,
it must not be so specific that it requires the prospective jurors to prejudge the
penalty. (People v. Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 1120-21.) We defer to the
trial court‟s discretion regarding the manner of conducting voir dire. (People v.
Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 490; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690,
713-714.) Here the trial court gave a concise but accurate description of the case.
Defendant contends the trial court should have told the prospective jurors
during voir dire that defendant personally committed the murder. The trial court,
however, was within its discretion in declining to so characterize the case to the
prospective jurors. The jury in the first trial made no specific finding that
defendant had personally committed the murder.32 As the trial court indicated,
who personally committed the murder remained an issue for the jurors in the
special circumstance retrial to determine.33 We also see no error in the trial
32 Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and robbery, and the
allegations he personally used a knife in the commission of the murder and
robbery, and personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the
robbery were found true. Although these verdicts strongly suggest the first jury
believed defendant was the actual killer, they do not, as a matter of law, create a
factual finding to that effect. As the trial court indicated, the first jury‟s verdicts
could apply under the following scenario in which defendant was not the actual
killer: In the course of the robbery, defendant begins stabbing the victim,
inflicting great bodily injury but not fatally injuring him. Then Hollowhornbear
(also armed with a knife) actually fatally injures the victim. Defendant would be
guilty of first degree felony murder as a confederate jointly engaged in a robbery
during the course of which his fellow confederate killed. (See People v. Pulido
(1997) 15 Cal.4th 713, 719-722 [reviewing non-killer complicity for felony
murder].) Under this scenario, defendant would also be guilty of the personal
knife use and great bodily injury enhancements, even though he was not the actual
33 Indeed, defense counsel went on to raise the issue in his opening statement of
the special circumstance retrial “whether or not Jack Friend personally did the
killing or whether or not Eugene Hollowhornbear personally did the killing or
(footnote continued on next page)
court‟s sustaining of the prosecution objection to defense counsel‟s asking
Prospective Juror F. S. whether he would consider returning the death penalty
against defendant if he believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the
actual perpetrator of the murder. As noted, the trial court has wide discretion in
the manner of conducting voir dire. (People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p.
490.) Because the trial court thought the question would require the prospective
juror to prejudge the evidence in the case, the court was within its discretion to
c. Error Based on Lack of Sufficient Showing of Substantial
Defendant contends that the following six prospective jurors were dismissed
in violation of Witt because their voir dire did not indicate their views on the death
penalty would substantially impair their ability to perform their duties as jurors.
As we conclude below, the trial court did not err in dismissing these jurors.
(1) Prospective Jurors R. A. and S. M.
The court engaged in a lengthy voir dire with R. A., in which she stated her
ambivalence towards applying the death penalty. R. A. indicated that she was
“slightly schizophrenic,” and that she always had “ two sides to [her] mind.”
When the trial court reiterated the question whether she could vote for the death
penalty if she felt it was the appropriate penalty in this case, she answered: “I think
I can, but I don‟t know if I‟d like it. I don‟t know if I‟d like myself if I did it. I
don‟t know.” Over defense counsel‟s objection, the trial court upheld the
(footnote continued from previous page)
whether or not Kevin Kelley personally did the killing.” In closing argument,
defense counsel likewise left open the question of who had actually committed the
prosecutor‟s challenge for cause, explaining she would be unable to make up her
Prospective Juror S. M. stated numerous times that she did not know whether
she could ever vote for the death penalty, and apologized for “vacillating.” Over
the objection of defense counsel, the trial court upheld the prosecutor‟s challenge
for cause, explaining she would be unable to make up her mind.
The dismissals of R. A. and S. M. were fairly supported by the record.
(People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 743.) The answers of both of these
prospective jurors supported the trial court‟s conclusion that they could not make
up their minds whether they could ever vote for the penalty, even though the court
gave them numerous opportunities to clarify their position. (See People v.
Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 980-981 [juror properly excused when court
determined her to be “ „extremely indecisive‟ ” on the death penalty].)
(2) Prospective Juror J. A.
In a lengthy voir dire, Prospective Juror J. A. indicated that he could only
consider imposing the death penalty on a Ted Bundy-type serial murderer, whom
the state previously had made “every possible effort” to rehabilitate. When the
court asked him whether the current case came up to his expectations for a death
penalty case, J. A. indicated that it was “almost impossible” for it to do so.
Without objection by defense counsel, the trial court upheld the prosecutor‟s
challenge for cause. The record thus fairly supported the trial court‟s dismissal of
J. A. on the basis that he was unwilling to consider the death penalty for a
defendant who had committed only one murder.
(3) Prospective Juror T. L.
In response to the court‟s general question of whether she could ever vote to
execute another human being, T. L. stated “probably not.” She indicated that
choosing the death penalty would cause her “psychological distress,” which would
“really haunt her for a long time.” She acknowledged she could not be fair and
impartial in the case. Without objection by defense counsel, the trial court upheld
the prosecutor‟s challenge for cause. The record fairly supported the trial court‟s
dismissal of T. L. on the basis that her concerns about being haunted by her
decision prevented her from considering the death penalty.
(4) Prospective Juror V. D.
V. D., a practicing Hindu, indicated on his questionnaire that he had to
consult the elders in his religious community about serving on a death penalty
trial. In voir dire, he told the court that the elders had told him his religion would
not allow him to impose the death penalty. He said that he did not think he could
impose the death penalty even if he felt it was deserved. Without objection by
defense counsel, the trial court upheld the prosecutor‟s challenge for cause. The
record fairly supported the trial court‟s dismissal of V. D. on the basis that his
religious beliefs precluded him from applying the death penalty.
(5) Prospective Juror C. E.
In voir dire, although initially stating her willingness to impose both
penalties, C. E.‟s brief answers indicated a hesitancy that led the court and the
prosecutor to ask further questions. She then stated she did not know whether she
could vote for the death penalty, and ultimately said she could not select the death
penalty even if she felt it was appropriate in the case. Without objection or
questioning by defense counsel, the trial court upheld the prosecutor‟s challenge
Defendant contends the trial court wore C. E. down by repeated questioning.
But we conclude the dismissal of C. E. was fairly supported by the record. The
court appropriately sought clarification of C. E.‟s brief answers, and this further
questioning revealed her inability to consider the death penalty as a sentencing
2. Asserted Prosecutorial Misconduct
a. Asserted Elicitation of Evidence Ruled Inadmissible
Defendant contends the prosecutor committed misconduct in the second trial
by eliciting testimony about two areas that had been ruled inadmissible by the
court‟s in limine rulings in the first trial: (1) defendant‟s prior incarceration and
(2) his prior troubles at the Oasis convenience store.
(1) Defendant’s Prior Jail Time
In the second trial, defendant‟s prior jail time was first mentioned during the
prosecutor‟s examination of Kelley, when, Kelley, in recalling his rejection of
defendant‟s proposal to rob the bar stated: “I said, I‟m not interested. I‟m trying to
stay out of trouble. You just got out of jail. I tried to talk him out of it.” Defense
counsel did not object to this testimony. Later, the prosecutor returned to the
issue, and asked Kelley how long defendant had been out of jail. Defense counsel
objected on the grounds that the question was not relevant and that it was
prejudicial. The court initially overruled the objection. A few minutes later, when
the prosecutor made another reference to defendant‟s having gotten out of jail,
defense counsel again objected that this was prejudicial. The court correctly
observed that defense counsel had not objected the first time Kelley had
mentioned it, but instructed the jury to disregard any reference to it, and asked the
prosecutor not to bring it up. Later, at a session without the jury, defense counsel
again objected to the prosecutor‟s references to defendant‟s prior jail time, and
raised the issue that he thought there had been an in limine ruling in the first trial
precluding mention of it. The trial judge explained that while he probably had
made that ruling in the first trial, what he saw as the problem now was that defense
counsel had not objected the first time it had been raised in the second trial.
Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial, which the court denied. In closing
argument, despite the court‟s instruction, the prosecutor, in the course of
condemning defendant‟s moral code, mentioned defendant‟s prior jail time again,
stating “Kelley says: You can‟t rob. You just got out of jail.”
We conclude defendant was not prejudiced. While it is true the trial judge
stated he “just assumed that rulings [he] made [at the first trial] would be observed
by the prosecution” at the second trial, defendant presents no authority that the
rulings of the first trial were applicable to the second trial absent a stipulation by
the parties to that effect. (Cf. People v. Humphries (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1315,
1329-1330 [the parties stipulated that in limine rulings of first trial court would
apply to retrial], abrogated on another ground in People v. Carter, supra,
30 Cal.4th at p. 1197.) More importantly, as the trial court explained to defense
counsel, the failure to object when defendant‟s prior jail time was first mentioned
during the second trial made it hard for the court to “unring [the] bell,” although
the court did instruct the jury to disregard the references. As respondent
acknowledges, the prosecutor‟s reference to defendant‟s prior jail time during
summation violated the judge‟s order. But the claim is forfeited for failure to
object. Moreover, we conclude that there was no prejudice to defendant. The
reference was brief, and the jury had been both generally instructed not to treat
closing argument as evidence, and specifically instructed to disregard any
reference to defendant‟s prior jail time.
(2) Reference to Trouble at the Oasis
As discussed, ante, at pages 34-35, at the first trial, the court ruled that
Kelley was not to mention that defendant was unwelcome at the Oasis
convenience store because he had been caught stealing, although it permitted
Kelley to testify generally that defendant had gotten into trouble there in the past.
In the second trial, the prosecutor asked Kelley why defendant, Hollowhornbear,
and Kelley had not gone to the Oasis. Defense counsel objected on relevance
grounds, which was overruled, and then on hearsay grounds, which the court
sustained. Later, at the end of the court day, outside the presence of the jury, the
court recalled its ruling from the first trial, and instructed the prosecutor “not to
mention anything about the Oasis” and “not to mention anything about Friend
getting thrown out of the Oasis, the guy caught him stealing or something like
that.” During the prosecutor‟s redirect examination, he again asked Kelley why
the group had not gone to the Oasis. Defense counsel objected, pointing to the
court‟s ruling in the first trial. The prosecutor rephrased the question as “Did Mr.
Friend say that he couldn‟t go to the Oasis bar or market,” and the court allowed
The question the prosecutor asked Kelley at the second trial was clearly
permissible under the court‟s ruling at the first trial. Defendant points to the
court‟s broad instruction at one point in the second trial not to mention “anything
about the Oasis.” But the trial court immediately followed that with the more
specific instruction not to mention “the guy caught him stealing,” which was the
same ruling as in the first trial. That the trial court merely meant to reiterate rather
than broaden its ruling from the first trial is indicated by the fact the court
permitted the question whether defendant had said he “couldn‟t go” to the Oasis,
which was a question that did not raise the issue of defendant‟s past stealing there.
b. Asserted Impugning of Defendant’s Brother
Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by indirectly
suggesting that defendant‟s brother had killed Moody (who, as discussed, post, at
pages 79-84, had gone missing before the second trial, and was declared an
unavailable witness.) During his rebuttal summation, the prosecutor addressed the
defense argument that the prosecution had put Moody in the victim/witness
protection program and moved him into an apartment in Hayward as a benefit to
Moody. The prosecutor referred to Moody‟s statement that he had heard that
defendant‟s brother had been released from prison and that he was afraid for his
own life. The prosecutor said that Moody would have been vulnerable if he had
stayed in the warehouse, and that this was the reason the prosecutor had moved
him to Hayward until his testimony. The prosecutor noted that, if a witness
becomes unavailable after testifying, his testimony can be read into the record at
the next trial. He then stated that he “was not by any stretch of the imagination
trying to infer [sic] that Jerry Friend [defendant‟s brother] had done anything to
Moody,” but “that‟s the point.”
Defense counsel failed to object and therefore defendant‟s claim is forfeited
on appeal. Moreover, on the merits, the prosecutor‟s comments were proper. In
order to rebut the defense argument that the prosecution had housed Moody as a
benefit in exchange for Moody‟s testimony, the prosecutor could properly present
a legitimate security-related reason for housing Moody based on Moody‟s
expressed fear of being harmed by defendant brother. The prosecutor‟s reference
to Moody‟s unavailability at the second trial in relation to defendant‟s brother was
a bit cryptic, but the prosecutor could properly emphasize the possibility of danger
to Moody underlying the decision to house him in Hayward.
c. Asserted Attacks on Counsel
Defendant cites several instances of what he characterizes as the prosecutor‟s
attacks on defense counsel. We note that the trial court at one point admonished
both the prosecutor and defense counsel “to start acting like lawyers” and to keep
their personal comments to themselves. We have reviewed the instances
defendant cites, and, while we cannot condone the prosecutor‟s occasional sniping
remarks, we conclude they do not amount to prejudicial misconduct.
d. Leading Questions
As with his claim of prosecutorial misconduct relating to his first trial,
defendant presents several instances in the second trial of the prosecutor‟s use of
leading questions. Defense counsel‟s repeated objections to leading questions
were frequently sustained. Indeed, the court made sua sponte objections to some
of the prosecutor‟s questions as leading. Given this record, we conclude defendant
suffered no prejudice.
3. Assertedly Erroneous Admission of Moody’s Testimony from the
As recounted, ante, at pages 8-9, Thomas Moody, a fellow alcoholic transient
and associate of defendant‟s at the warehouse, testified at defendant‟s first trial
that defendant admitted he committed the robbery murder. However, for the
special circumstance retrial Moody could not be located. Following a hearing
outside the presence of the jury, in which the prosecutor presented evidence of his
unsuccessful efforts to find Moody, the court ruled that the prosecution had
exercised due diligence in attempting to locate him, and declared him an
unavailable witness. Moody‟s testimony from the first trial was then read to the
jury. Defendant contends the trial court erred, but, as we conclude below,
Moody‟s testimony from the first trial was properly admitted.
On January 19, 1990 (which was about a year and a half before the special
circumstance retrial commenced in the fall of 1991) the defense served a subpoena
on Moody (who was then incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail) to appear as a witness at
a discovery hearing to be held on March 26, 1990. Moody failed to appear, and
the court eventually ordered that a warrant of attachment issue. On April 24,
1990, the sheriff attempted to serve the warrant at an address at which Moody‟s
father had once lived, but Moody was not there.
After several continuances, the special circumstance retrial was scheduled to
begin in September 1991. In the summer of 1991, investigators from the district
attorney‟s office began searching for Moody, but were unable to find him. The
prosecutor moved to have Moody declared an unavailable witness, and on
February 26, 1992, the day before the jurors were sworn for his second trial, the
court held a hearing on the motion.
Moody‟s father, Dean Moody (Dean), testified that either in June or July of
1990, Moody stayed with him for about a week. Moody had a cast on his foot and
was receiving treatment at a local hospital. One day Moody said he was going to
the store, left the house, and never returned. Dean never saw or heard from him
again. About a year later, in the summer of 1991, Dean was contacted by
inspector Brierly of the district attorney‟s office, who was trying to locate Moody.
Dean then made some inquiries and drove by some of Moody‟s old haunts, but
with no results. Dean testified that, although Moody was an alcoholic transient,
Moody had, until his disappearance in the summer of 1990, always contacted
Dean at least once every six months, if only to borrow money.
Prosecutor Landswick testified that he last saw Moody in either May or June
of 1990, when Moody unexpectedly dropped by his office. Landswick refused
Moody‟s request for money, but drove him to a garage where he was staying at the
time in East Oakland or San Leandro. Landswick testified that because the special
circumstance retrial was scheduled to begin in September 1991, his office had no
reason to contact Moody until the summer of 1991, when they began to prepare
for trial. At this point Landswick asked Inspector Richard Brierly to look for
Moody. Up to this time, the investigators in the district attorney‟s office had
always succeeded in getting Moody to call them by contacting Moody‟s father.
Robert Gannon, an inspector with the district attorney‟s office, testified about
his contacts with Moody. In October 1984, Gannon had put Moody into the
witness protection program, and Gannon communicated with Moody into 1990.
Moody would call him periodically to give him his new address and phone
number, and sometimes asked for money. In 1990, Gannon met with Moody three
or four times, and brought him in for interviews with Landswick. The last contact
Gannon had with Moody was on July 17, 1990, when Moody called Gannon and
told him he was staying at an address in Richmond. He told Gannon he was
unemployable because he had a broken foot.
Inspector Brierly testified to an extensive but unsuccessful investigation he
made to locate Moody beginning in July 1991 and continuing up to the time of the
hearing in February 1992. Brierly contacted Moody‟s family and friends, former
employers, places of residence, hospitals, and jails. He ran Moody‟s name
through state and federal databases and contacted police in other major western
“A criminal defendant has the right under both the federal and state
Constitutions to confront the witnesses against him [or her]. (U.S. Const., 6th
Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) This right, however, is not absolute. The high
court . . . reaffirmed the long-standing exception that „[t]estimonial statements of
witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declarant is
unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-
examine.‟ ” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 340, quoting Crawford v.
Washington, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 59.) “Evidence Code section 1291 codifies this
traditional exception.” (People v. Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 340.) “When the
requirements of Evidence Code section 1291 are met, „admitting former testimony
in evidence does not violate a defendant's right of confrontation under the federal
Constitution. [Citations.]‟ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th
at p. 742.)
“Evidence Code section 1291, subdivision (a)(2), provides that former
testimony is not rendered inadmissible as hearsay if the declarant is „unavailable
as a witness,‟ and „[t]he party against whom the former testimony is offered was a
party to the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had the
right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive
similar to that which he has at the hearing.‟ . . . Evidence Code section 240,
subdivision (a)(5), provides that a declarant is „unavailable as a witness‟ if [he or
she] is „[a]bsent from the hearing and the proponent of his or her statement has
exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure his or her
attendance by the court‟s process.‟ ” (People v. Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at
“The term „reasonable diligence‟ or „due diligence‟ under Evidence Code
section 240, subdivision (a)(5) „ “connotes persevering application, untiring efforts
in good earnest, efforts of a substantial character. [Citations.]” ‟ ” (People v.
Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 341, quoting People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th
889, 904 [“reasonable diligence same as due diligence”].) “Considerations
relevant to this inquiry include the timeliness of the search, the importance of the
proffered testimony, and whether leads of the witness‟s possible location were
competently explored.” (People v. Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 341.) “We
independently review a trial court‟s due diligence determination.” (Ibid.)
Defendant does not dispute that, during the period between July 1991 and
February 1992 (when the due diligence hearing was held), the prosecutor made
concerted efforts to locate Moody. Rather, defendant‟s contention is the
prosecutor failed to exercise due diligence in maintaining contact with Moody in
the period from March 1990 (when Moody failed to respond to the subpoena for
the pretrial discovery hearing) through July 1991 (when the prosecution first
began to make concerted efforts to locate him). Additionally, defendant contends
that the prosecutor should have taken some steps “to prevent Moody from
absenting himself” in the period prior to defendant‟s second trial.
As to whether the prosecutor should have maintained regular contact with
Moody in the period between March 1990 and June 1991, we have noted that
“[t]he prosecutor is not required „to keep “periodic tabs” on every material witness
in a criminal case . . . .‟ ” (People v. Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 342, quoting
People v. Hovey (1988) 44 Cal.3d 543, 564.) We have also stated that when there
is knowledge of “ „a substantial risk‟ ” that an “ „important witness would flee,‟ ”
the prosecutor is required to “ „take adequate preventative measures‟ to stop the
witness from disappearing.” (Ibid.)
Here, however, the record does not reflect that the prosecutor had any
knowledge of or reason to know of a substantial risk that Moody would flee or
otherwise disappear. Defendant contends that Moody‟s transient lifestyle
generally created the risk that that Moody would permanently disappear. But
testimony at the due diligence hearing established that, although Moody was a
transient, he stayed within the general vicinity of Oakland and had maintained
contact with various individuals such as his father and investigator Gannon.
Defendant points to the fact that Moody did not appear for the March 1990
discovery hearing, and contends that this should have put the prosecutor on notice
that Moody was at risk of going missing. But both Prosecutor Landswick and
investigator Gannon testified they had contact with Moody after that date (in May
or June, and July of 1990) and that his general circumstances appeared unchanged.
The fact that Moody had missed one hearing date did not create a substantial risk
that he would permanently disappear.
Finally, defendant criticizes the prosecutor for waiting until July 11, 1991 to
start actively searching for Moody. But this date was not unreasonable given that
the second trial, which had been continued several times, was scheduled to begin
in September of 1991. Based on our review of the record, we therefore conclude
the prosecutor met the standard of due diligence and that the trial court therefore
did not err in determining that Moody was “ „unavailable as a witness.‟ ” (Evid.
Code, § 240.)
4. Assertedly Erroneous Instructions on the Scope of the Jury’s
With minor modification, the court instructed the jury at the special
circumstance retrial with the same instructions it had given at the first trial. The
court gave the full panoply of homicide instructions, including those on the two
theories of first degree murder considered at the first trial: felony murder and
premeditated and deliberate murder. Defendant contends that, beyond telling the
second jury that defendant had been convicted of first degree murder, robbery, use
of a knife and great bodily injury, the trial court should not have instructed the jury
on any other substantive crimes. Alternatively, defendant contends that if the jury
was to be instructed on a theory of first degree murder, the trial court should have
instructed only on felony murder, not premeditated first degree murder, because,
as defendant contends, the jury in the first trial convicted defendant on the former
theory, not the latter. Finally, defendant contends that instructing the jury with
both theories of first degree murder resulted in a directed verdict on the special
circumstance allegation because the instructions implied that defendant had been
found guilty under both theories. As we conclude below, the trial court did not err
in its homicide instructions.
a. Assertedly Erroneous Homicide Instructions
Outside the presence of the jury, the court, the prosecutor, and defense
counsel reviewed the jury instructions that had been agreed to, modified, and
objected to. All agreed that, with some minor modifications, the vast majority of
the jury instructions given at the first trial should also be given at the special
circumstance retrial.34 In instructing the jurors on murder, the trial court stated:
“I‟m telling you this because we want you to know the theories that could be
applied in this case.” The trial court also stated: “You know already that the
defendant has been found guilty of murder of the first degree, and that‟s another
reason that we want to tell you the definition of what murder is.” The trial court
told the jury not to speculate as to the reasons the prior jury reached the verdicts it
did, and gave the following special defense instruction: “In your deliberations, you
may not discuss, take into consideration or speculate as to the reason the prior jury
reached the verdicts that were rendered in this case. [¶] Your verdict on whether
the special circumstance is true or not true must be based solely on the evidence
presented to you in this case.”
Section 190.4, subdivision (a), provides: “In any case in which the defendant
has been found guilty by a jury, and the jury has been unable to reach an
unanimous verdict that one or more of the special circumstances charged are true,
and does not reach an unanimous verdict that all the special circumstances charged
34 Defense counsel‟s major disagreement with the jury instructions was that the
court refused to give a general presumption of innocence instruction. This is
discussed, post, at pages 95-97.
are not true, the court shall dismiss the jury and shall order a new jury impaneled
to try the issues, but the issue of guilt shall not be tried by such jury . . . .”
Defendant presents no authority regarding instructing the jury about the
principles of homicide at a special circumstance retrial. Generally, “[t]he court
has a duty to see to it that the jury are „adequately informed on the law governing
all elements of the case submitted to them to an extent necessary to enable them to
perform their function in conformity with the applicable law.‟ ” (5 Witkin &
Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 616, p. 880, quoting
People v. Sanchez (1950) 35 Cal.2d 522, 528.) “The court should define sua
sponte terms used in statutory definitions of an offense that have a technical or
specialized meaning.” (5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, Criminal
Trial, § 616, p. 881, citing numerous cases.) “Unlike words in common usage
[citation], a word of technical or specialized meaning that is used in the statutory
definition of an offense should be defined or explained, because this usually
constitutes an element of the offense.” (5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law,
supra, Criminal Trial, § 634, p. 907, citing People v. Smith (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d
We have observed that “special circumstances are sui generis — neither a
crime, an enhancement, nor a sentencing factor.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36
Cal.3d 539, 552.) However, as to jury instructions, we have also stated, “we do
not believe the courts can extend a defendant less protection with regard to the
elements of a special circumstance than for the elements of a criminal charge.”
In order for a special circumstance allegation to be found true, the defendant
must also have first been found guilty of first degree murder. (§ 190.2.) The jury
at defendant‟s special circumstance retrial was instructed with the following
version of CALJIC No. 8.81.17 (1984 rev.) (4th ed. 1979): “To find that the
special circumstance referred to in these instructions as murder in the commission
of a robbery is true, it must be proved: [¶] (1), that the murder was committed
while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery; [¶] (2), that the
defendant intended to kill a human being; [¶] (3), that the murder was committed
in order to carry out or advance the commission of the crime of robbery or to
facilitate the escape therefrom or to avoid detection. [¶] In other words, the
special circumstances referred to in these instructions is not established if the
robbery was merely incidental to the commission of the murder.”35 Because a
finding of guilt of first degree murder was a necessary precondition to the special
circumstance finding, the trial court did not err in instructing on first degree
murder, a term that is clearly one of technical or specialized meaning.
Furthermore, given the complicated law of homicide and the interrelated
specialized legal definitions involved, the trial court did not err in giving the full
panoply of homicide instructions. We therefore reject defendant‟s contention that
the trial court had no basis for instructing on homicide apart from the robbery-
murder special circumstance itself.
We further note that providing the jury with the full panoply of homicide
instructions did not, as defendant implies, violate the prohibition in section 190.4,
subdivision (a), against having the second jury retry the issue of defendant‟s guilt.
The trial court gave the homicide instructions at the special circumstance retrial so
that the jury would understand the scope of its task, not so that it would retry
defendant‟s guilt of the underlying first degree murder. However, even assuming
that the jury could have used the homicide instructions to reconsider defendant‟s
guilt of the underlying murder, we fail to see any prejudice to defendant. Any
35 The court instructed with the 1984 revision of this instruction because
defendant‟s crime occurred during the Carlos window. (See fn. 30, ante.)
reconsideration by the jury of defendant‟s guilt of the underlying first degree
murder could only have enhanced defendant‟s chances of being acquitted of the
special circumstance allegation.
b. Assertedly Erroneous Instruction on Premeditation and
In the alternative, defendant argues that, while instruction on a felony-murder
theory of first degree murder might have been appropriate, the trial court should
not have also instructed on a theory of premeditated first degree murder, because,
as defendant further argues, the first jury made special findings that it accepted the
felony-murder theory but rejected the premeditation theory. As we conclude
below, even assuming that the first jury‟s verdict amounted to a finding that it
accepted a felony murder theory, the first jury‟s verdict did not present a finding,
express or implied, that the first jury rejected the premeditation theory.
Consequently, the trial court did not err in instructing the second jury on
premeditated first degree murder.
At the first trial, the trial court used five different verdict forms for the
murder count. Verdict form No. 1, which the jury used to convict defendant of
first degree murder, contained, in relevant part, a verdict for first degree murder
and a verdict for the robbery-murder special circumstance.36 The first degree
murder verdict read: “We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find the defendant
Jack Wayne Friend, GUILTY of a felony, to wit: First Degree Murder, a violation
of Section 187 of the Penal Code of California, as charged in Count One of the
36 Verdict form No. 1 also contained the verdict for the personal use of a knife in
the commission of the murder. The distribution of the personal use enhancements
on the verdict forms is not relevant to defendant‟s claim.
Information.” Verdict form No. 2 contained the same verdict for first degree
murder with the same phrasing but contained no verdict for the robbery-murder
special circumstance. Verdict form No. 3 contained a verdict for second degree
murder; verdict form No. 4 contained a verdict for voluntary manslaughter; and
verdict form No. 5 contained a verdict of not guilty of murder.
The trial court gave the jury detailed instructions on how to use the murder
verdict forms. The trial court explained that verdict form No. 1 was “based upon
the theory of felony murder, that is, a killing committed during the commission of
a robbery,” and further explained that the jury could only consider the robbery-
murder special-circumstance allegation if the jury accepted this felony-murder
theory. If the jury accepted the felony-murder theory, the trial court instructed the
jury to go on to decide the special circumstance allegation (which was on the same
verdict form) by deciding whether the murder was an intentional killing during the
commission of a robbery. However, if the jury had a reasonable doubt whether the
killing was done during the commission of the robbery, the trial court instructed
the jury to “put away” verdict form No. 1 and “go on to the next verdict” (verdict
form No. 2), which was the one for willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
Verdict form No. 2 did not contain a special-circumstance allegation verdict
because, as the trial court explained, the theory of first degree murder for this
verdict form was not based on felony murder. If the jury had a reasonable doubt
as to whether defendant was guilty of first degree murder, the court instructed that
the jury should then consider second degree murder, and, if the jury had a
reasonable doubt about second degree murder, it should then consider voluntary
manslaughter. If the jury wanted to acquit defendant of all the murder charges, the
court instructed the jury to use the verdict form finding him not guilty of murder.
The court concluded by telling the jury: “Now whatever you do only bring me
back one verdict as to each count. Now he‟s either guilty or not guilty of Count
One [Murder], so you can only have one verdict.”
Defendant contends that, because of the structure of the murder verdict forms
and the trial court‟s instructions, the fact that the first jury convicted defendant of
first degree murder using verdict form No. 1 amounted to a special finding that the
jury found defendant guilty on a felony-murder theory. However, even if we
accept this contention, we need not and do not accept defendant‟s further
contention that the first jury also made a special finding rejecting the theory of
premeditated first degree murder. Given the facts of the case, the felony-murder
theory and the premeditated murder theory were not mutually exclusive. Indeed
the prosecutor had expressly argued the applicability of both theories by
contending that defendant committed the murder in the commission of a robbery
and had premeditatedly killed the bartender to eliminate him as a witness to that
The trial court had instructed the jury to return only one verdict form on
murder, and also instructed them to begin by considering first degree murder on a
felony-murder theory. By the terms of the court‟s instructions, once the jury
agreed to first degree murder on the felony-murder theory, the jury was not
required to go on to consider first degree murder on a premeditation theory.
Indeed, even if the jury had gone on to consider premeditation, it had no way to
express any finding on that theory since it was instructed to sign and return only
one of the murder verdict forms. The premeditation theory of first degree murder
therefore remained an unadjudicated issue. 37 Because the first jury made no
finding rejecting the premeditation theory of first degree murder, the trial court did
not err in instructing the second jury with that theory.38
c. Asserted Directed Verdict
Defendant contends that, by instructing on both theories of first degree
murder, the trial court implied that defendant had been found guilty of both
theories by the first jury. This, defendant contends, had the result of directing the
verdict, since, if the jury assumed both theories of first degree murder, all the
elements of the special-circumstance robbery-murder allegation would necessarily
be satisfied. Defendant points to part of the court‟s instruction that might, read out
of context, be seen as implying that defendant had been convicted on both
37 Defendant failed to raise any objection at the first trial as to the murder verdict
forms, let alone request verdict forms that would have required the jury to make
special findings as to the two theories of first degree murder.
38 For the same reason, we reject defendant‟s related contention, raised for the first
time at oral argument, that the trial court committed error, under People v. Sturm
(2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218 by failing to accurately inform the second jury of the
findings made by defendant‟s first jury. In Sturm, we reversed defendant‟s penalty
phase judgment because the trial court had erroneously stated to the penalty phase
retrial jury that the jury in defendant‟s first trial had found him guilty of first
degree murder on a premeditation theory. (Id. at pp. 1231-1233.) Unlike the trial
court in Sturm, however, the trial court at defendant‟s special circumstance retrial
made no misstatements about the findings of the first jury. Furthermore, as noted,
the trial court expressly instructed the special circumstance retrial jury not to
speculate as to the basis of the first jury‟s verdict of first degree murder.
theories.39 But the record as a whole shows that the trial court clearly indicated to
the jury that the two theories were possible bases for first degree murder.40
d. Assertedly Misleading Felony-murder Instruction
The trial court instructed with the following modified version of CALJIC No.
3.31: “In the crime charged in Count One of the Information, namely Murder,
there must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct and a certain mental
state in the mind of the perpetrator, and unless such mental state exists, the crime
to which it relates is not committed. [¶] In the crime of Murder, the necessary
mental state is to harbor malice aforethought, except in felony murder, where the
law imputes malice to a person who kills in perpetration of a robbery or in an
attempt to perpetrate a robbery.” Defendant contends the trial court erred by
referring to malice in connection with felony murder, since our decision in People
v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 (Dillon) indicates malice is not an element of
Dillon, a plurality opinion by Justice Mosk, addressed whether the felony-
murder rule was unconstitutional because it shifted to the defendant the burden of
disproving the element of malice. (Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 472-473.) The
defendant in Dillon pointed to many of our opinions that recited that malice was
“presumed” (or similar cognate phrases, including “imputed”) by the operation of
39 “Now, you know already that Mr. Friend‟s been found guilty of murder of the
first degree. I‟ve given you definitions of felony murder and first degree murder
requiring malice aforethought and premeditation and deliberation, and you also
know he‟s been found guilty of robbery.”
40 In introducing his instructions on the different theories of murder, the court
stated: “I‟m telling you this because we want you to know the theories that could
be applied in this case.” (Italics added.) Immediately after the statement
defendant points to, the court reminded the jury not to “discuss, take into
consideration, or speculate as to the reasons the prior jury reached the verdicts that
were rendered in this case.”
the felony murder rule. (Id. at p. 473 & fn. 20.) Dillon rejected the contention that
these traditional phrases in themselves decided the constitutional issue, and
concluded that the felony-murder rule did not involve an unconstitutional
presumption because the so-called presumption of malice “is no more than a
procedural fiction that masks a substantive reality, to wit, that as a matter of law
malice is not an element of felony murder.” (Id. at p. 475.) In supporting this
conclusion we noted that our prior “decisions had recognized this reality,” and we
quoted from a prior opinion which stated, inter alia, that “ „[a]ttempts to explain
the statute to the jury in terms of nonexistent “conclusive presumptions” tend more
to confuse than to enlighten a jury unfamiliar with the inaccurate practice of
stating rules of substantive law in terms of rules of evidence.‟ ” (Ibid., quoting
People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 136.)
We therefore reject defendant‟s contention that the trial court committed
prejudicial error in instructing the jury that “the law imputes malice to a person
who kills in perpetration of a robbery or in an attempt to perpetrate a robbery.”
First of all, this is not an incorrect description of the law. Even after Dillon, we
have occasionally used this traditional formula to describe the felony-murder rule.
(See, e.g., People v. Hansen (1994) 9 Cal.4th 300, 308 [“The felony-murder rule
imputes the requisite malice for a murder conviction to those who commit a
homicide during the perpetration of a felony inherently dangerous to human life.”]
overruled on another ground in People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1199; but
see also Hansen, at p. 320 (conc. & dis. opn. of Mosk, J. [preferring the
formulation that the felony-murder rule is a “substitute” for malice aforethought.])
Recently, in the course of clarifying the second degree felony-murder rule, we
observed that the felony-murder rule generally “ „acts as a substitute‟ for
conscious-disregard-for-life malice,” and therefore “describes a different form of
malice under section 188.” (People v. Chun, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1184, citing
People v. Patterson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 615, 626.)
In light of Dillon, jury instructions on felony murder should avoid language
suggesting that felony murder results in a conclusive presumption of malice. But,
there was no danger that the jury would so understand the court‟s instruction in the
instant case. In addressing whether a jury instruction is misleading we consider
“ „the entire charge of the court,‟ ” not just a particular instruction or parts of an
instruction. (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016.) Here, the trial
court instructed with CALJIC No. 8.10 (5th ed. 1988) on murder, which stated:
“Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice aforethought or
during the commission or attempted commission of robbery, a felony inherently
dangerous to human life, is guilty of the crime of murder in violation of Section
187 of the Penal Code.” The court also instructed with CALJIC No. 8.21 (5th ed.
1988) on first degree felony murder: “The unlawful killing of a human being,
whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs during the
commission or attempted commission of the crime of robbery is murder of the first
degree when the perpetrator had the specific intent to commit such crime. [¶] The
specific intent to commit robbery and the commission or attempted commission of
such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” These two instructions
distinguished malice murder from felony murder, explained what the elements of
felony murder were, and made it clear that malice aforethought was not an element
of felony murder.
5. Asserted Failure to Instruct on Presumption of Innocence and
Burden of Proof
Defendant contends the trial court erred in modifying the presumption of
innocence instruction and in refusing to give a defense special instruction on the
burden of proof for the special circumstance allegation. As we conclude below,
the court did not err.
For the special circumstance retrial, the trial court modified CALJIC No.
2.90 on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, and CALJIC No. 8.80
on the robbery-murder special circumstance. CALJIC No. 2.90 has two
paragraphs, the first setting forth the presumption of innocence, the second
defining reasonable doubt.41 Over the objection of defense counsel, the court
omitted the first paragraph, explaining “I‟m not giving that because he‟s already
been found guilty. I‟m giving the definition of what reasonable doubt is.” The
defense proposed the following supplemental instruction to CALJIC No. 2.90:
“This instruction on presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt applies in this
case as follows: [¶] The special circumstance is presumed not to be true until the
contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether the truth of the
special circumstance is satisfactorily shown, the defendant is entitled to a finding
that the special circumstance is not true. [¶] This presumption places upon the
People the burden of proving the truth of the special circumstance beyond a
reasonable doubt.” The court refused this instruction, explaining that it was
“properly covered by the CALJIC instructions.”
41 “ A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary
is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether [his] [her] guilt is
satisfactorily shown, [he] [she] is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This
presumption places upon the People the burden of proving [him] [her] guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶] Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a
mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some
possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire
comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in
that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of
the charge.” (CALJIC No. 2.90 (5th ed. 1988.)
For CALJIC No. 8.80 (5th ed. 1989), the court made the following two
unobjected-to substitutions: For “If you find the defendant in this case guilty of
murder of the first degree, you must then determine if the following special
circumstance is true or not true,” the court substituted: “Now, the defendant in
this case has been found guilty of murder of the first degree and robbery. You
must determine that the following special circumstance is true or not true.” For
“The People have the burden of proving the truth of a special circumstance,” the
court substituted: “A special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable
“[T]he failure to give a requested instruction on the presumption of
innocence does not in and of itself violate the Constitution.” (Kentucky v.
Whorton (1979) 441 U.S. 786, 789 (per curiam).) In addressing this issue we have
followed the United States Supreme Court‟s approach in Taylor v. Kentucky
(1978) 436 U.S. 478. “[D]ue process does not mandate the „use of the particular
phrase “presumption of innocence” — or any other form of words . . . .‟
[Citations.] Rather, this traditional formulation „simply represents one means of
protecting the accused‟s constitutional right to be judged solely on the basis of
proof adduced at trial.‟ [Citation.] Accordingly, we decline defendant‟s implicit
invitation to confine instruction on the presumption of innocence to any rigid or
narrowly precise terms. [Citation.] As long as the court‟s charge to the jury
conveys the substance of the principle, it will satisfy due process.” (People v.
Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 72, quoting Taylor v. Kentucky, supra, 436 U.S.
at pp. 485-486.)
We therefore reject defendant‟s contention that the omission of the traditional
presumption of innocence language violated defendant‟s due process rights. As
recounted above, the court properly instructed the jury pursuant to CALJIC No.
8.80 that “[a] special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The court properly instructed on the definition of reasonable doubt, giving the
second paragraph of CALJIC No. 2.90. The court also instructed the jury pursuant
to CALJIC No. 2.11.5 that its “sole duty is to decide whether the People have
proved the truth of the special circumstance in this trial” and pursuant to CALJIC
No. 2.61 that “the defendant may choose to rely on the state of the evidence and
upon the failure, if any, of the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every
essential element of the charge against him.” These instructions conveyed the
substance of the principle of the presumption of innocence. (People v.
Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 72.)
Defendant also criticizes the court‟s decision to delete the presumption of
innocence language from CALJIC No. 2.90 as being inexplicable. But the court
made its reasoning clear. Defendant had been found guilty of first degree murder
and the other charges in the first trial. As discussed above, section 190.4,
subdivision (a) prohibited the jury from reconsidering defendant‟s guilt for these
charges in the special circumstance retrial. The court considered that the
traditional presumption of innocence language in the first paragraph of CALJIC
No. 2.90 might cause the jurors to violate section 190.4, subdivision (a) or
otherwise confuse them as to the scope of their duty in the special circumstance
retrial. The court therefore decided to omit the first paragraph of CALJIC No.
2.90 based on those concerns.
6. Assertedly Erroneous Instruction on the Robbery-Murder Special
As discussed and quoted above, ante, at page 101, the trial court instructed
with CALJIC No. 8.81.17 on the robbery-murder special circumstance. Defendant
contends the lack of the conjunction “and” between the three elements of the
instruction led the jury to believe that there was an implied “or” (disjunctive)
between the three elements, and that the instruction therefore impermissibly
allowed the jury to find the special circumstance allegation true based on only one
Using the disjunctive (or) between the elements of CALJIC No. 8.81.17
would indeed be inappropriate. (People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 903.) But
the trial court did not use the disjunctive. Defendant‟s contention is that the lack
of any grammatical connectors between the elements made the instruction unclear
and misled the jury. When reviewing a claim based on assertedly ambiguous
instructions, we inquire whether the jury was reasonably likely to have construed
them in a manner that violates the defendant‟s rights. (People v. Rogers (2006) 39
Cal.4th 826, 873.) Applying this standard, we conclude it was not reasonably
likely the jury understood the elements to be in the disjunctive. Absent the
insertion of express disjunctives, the listing of three separate elements that must be
proved clearly implied that proof of each was independently necessary. We
therefore reject defendant‟s contention.
42 As noted, ante, at footnote 35, the court instructed with the 1984 revised version
of the instruction, which had no grammatical connectives between the three
elements. Defendant is correct that the 1991 revised version, which was available
when the court instructed the jury on June 19, 1992, added the word “and”
between the elements. As noted, ante, at footnote 35, the reason the court
instructed with the 1984 revised version was that defendant‟s crime occurred
during the Carlos window, when intent to kill was an element of the robbery-
murder special circumstance.
C. Second Trial: Penalty Phase
1. Asserted Prosecutorial Misconduct
a. Asserted Improper Comment
Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by commenting
during the examination of a witness that defendant was a “danger” while in prison.
The prosecution had called Sheriff‟s Deputy Allen Boyd, who was in charge of
classifying prisoners at the jail where defendant was incarcerated while awaiting
trial. Boyd had interviewed defendant after he had threatened to stab fellow
inmate Mario Holland in the neck with a pair of fingernail clippers. Boyd said
defendant warned that some of the other inmates in his pod were antagonizing him
and that someone would get killed because he would kill someone before he got
hurt or killed himself. The prosecutor then asked whether and why Boyd had
reclassified defendant after receiving this information, and defense counsel
successfully objected to this line of questioning as irrelevant. The court noted that
Boyd‟s reclassification of defendant was not an aggravating factor, to which the
prosecutor replied, “Because Mr. Friend is a danger — .” The trial court cut him
off, informed the jurors to disregard the comment, and instructed them that it was
their job to decide whether or not defendant was a danger. Later, outside of the
presence of the jury, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial court
acknowledged that it was inappropriate for the prosecutor to have said that
defendant was a danger, but overruled the motion because the trial court had
adequately admonished the jury as to the comment. We agree with the trial court.
The prosecutor‟s comment constituted error, but the court‟s admonition cured any
prejudice to defendant.
b. Asserted Improper Cross-examination of Defendant at the
Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by improperly
cross-examining defendant on various topics including his tattoos, his interest in
Satanism, the Ku Klux Klan, and statements that defendant had allegedly made to
several of his probation officers. 43 Defense counsel unsuccessfully objected to
many of these questions on grounds of relevance. On appeal, defendant contends
the prosecutor‟s questions on these topics were misconduct because he did not
have a good faith belief in the facts underlying the questions. As we have stated,
“ „[i]t is improper for a prosecutor to ask questions of a witness that suggest facts
harmful to a defendant, absent a good faith belief that such facts exist.‟ ” (People
v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562, quoting People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d
471, 480.) “ „But if the defense does not object, and the prosecutor is not asked to
justify the question, a reviewing court is rarely able to determine whether this form
of misconduct has occurred. [Citation.] Therefore, a claim of misconduct on this
basis is waived absent a timely and specific objection during the trial.‟ ” (People v.
Bolden, supra, 29 Cal. 4th at p. 562, quoting People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324,
481.) As we conclude below, defendant‟s claim is forfeited because trial counsel
failed to object on this ground. Moreover, the requisite “good faith” can be
inferred from the record because “the factual specificity of the prosecutor‟s
questions implies they were based on information obtained during the prosecutor‟s
review of records available to the defense.” (People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th
at p. 388; People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 191.)
43 Defendant also challenges the trial court‟s denial of defense objections to the
relevance of these topics, which is discussed post in part II.C.1.b.
(1) Tattoos and Books on Satanism
On direct examination, defendant stated that he was missing some teeth. On
cross-examination, the prosecutor asked defendant whether that was because of
tattoos inside his mouth. Defendant answered no, and the prosecutor asked him
what was tattooed inside of his mouth. Defense counsel‟s objection was
overruled. The prosecutor asked, “It‟s „fuck you,‟ isn‟t it?” Defendant answered,
“I don‟t know. Is it?” Defense counsel objected that the question was irrelevant
and beyond the scope of direct examination, but was overruled. The court ruled
the questions were permissible cross-examination because they pertained to
defendant‟s testimony about his religious leanings. The court sustained a defense
objection to the prosecutor‟s next question of what defendant had tattooed on his
penis, but allowed the question of how many times defendant had tattooed “fuck
you” on his body. Defendant refused to answer that question, and the court
instructed the jury that it could take into consideration the fact that defendant
refused to answer a question in assessing his credibility in the case.
The prosecutor then asked defendant whether he had possessed any books on
Satanism in his cell since his incarceration. Defense counsel objected, once again
on relevancy grounds and as beyond the scope of direct examination. The trial
court overruled the objection, noting again that defendant had emphasized his
Christianity in his direct testimony. Defendant stated he did have such books
because he was researching Satanism and its effect on people.
As noted, defense counsel only objected on the ground of relevance, not on
the ground that the prosecutor had no factual basis for these lines of questioning,
and defendant therefore has forfeited his claim. Moreover, on the merits, we infer
the prosecutor had a good faith belief in the factual basis of his questions because
of the factual specificity of his questions. (People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at
p. 388; People v. Mickle, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 191.)
(2) Ku Klux Klan and Other White Supremacist Groups
Without objection, the prosecutor asked defendant whether he had been a
member of the Ku Klux Klan, and defendant answered yes. The prosecutor sought
to ask defendant whether he was a White supremacist or member of the J. B.
Stoner‟s National States Rights Party, but the court sustained defense relevancy
objections. Because defendant failed to object below on the basis the prosecutor
lacked a good faith belief in a factual basis for these questions, he has forfeited his
claim for purpose of this appeal. Moreover, the jury was admonished to disregard
the prosecutor‟s reference to the J. B. Stoner‟s National States Rights Party, so
defendant was not prejudiced.
(3) Letters to Probation Officers
The prosecutor asked defendant whether he had made statements to several
of his probation officers in the past indicating his intention to reform himself
based on his religious convictions, and showed him letters in which the purported
statements were made. Defendant denied authorship of both letters. Defense
counsel objected to the second letter on the grounds that it was not written by
defendant and had not been authenticated. The court ruled that defense counsel
could question defendant about whether he had ever made the representations
indicated in the letter, which defendant then also denied making. Although
defense counsel strenuously objected on the grounds that defendant had not in fact
written the letter, counsel never objected that the prosecutor had no good faith
basis to believe that defendant wrote the letter or made the representations
contained therein. Defendant‟s claim is therefore forfeited. Moreover, on the
merits, because of the specificity of the questions and the exhibition of the letters
themselves, we infer the prosecutor had a good faith belief in the factual basis of
his questions. (People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 388; People v. Mickle,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 191.)
Indeed, during his closing argument, the prosecutor indicated his basis for
believing the letter to have been written by defendant, when he represented that it
had been in defendant‟s court file. Defendant contends that, since the letter was
never authenticated, by so stating the prosecutor was offering his own unsworn
testimony and vouching for otherwise inadmissible evidence. Defense counsel did
not object specifically to the prosecutor‟s statement, which came after counsel
objected to the prosecutor‟s reference to the statements in the letter in closing
argument as misstating the evidence (because defendant had denied making them).
Defendant‟s claim is therefore forfeited. Moreover, on the merits, we see no
prejudice. The prosecutor erred in stating factual support for the provenance of
the letter that was not based on the evidence. However, the trial court made clear
that the issue was whether defendant had ever made the representations made in
the letter, not whether defendant had written the letter. The jury heard defendant‟s
testimony that he had not made such representations.
c. Misstatements and Misrepresentations of Evidence of
(1) Arson and Attempted Train-wrecking Incidents
When the court and parties met to review the admissibility of the proposed
aggravating evidence, the prosecutor informed the court that he had no evidence
for two of the incidents in his notice: No. 20 (“attempted to derail a train”) and
No. 21 (“attempted to [ignite] a rag . . . in the heater area of a public pool”). The
prosecutor nonetheless raised these two incidents while cross-examining
defendant. After referring to defendant‟s testimony that he had sniffed glue as a
young man, the prosecutor asked him, without objection, whether he was sniffing
glue when he and a friend set fire to the pump house of a public swimming pool in
1970 in Los Angeles. Defendant admitted being present when the fire was started,
but asserted someone else caused it. The prosecutor later asked defendant what
substance he was abusing in 1970 when he and his brother attempted to wreck a
train in Los Angeles in order to rob the passengers. Defense counsel
unsuccessfully objected that the question was irrelevant and beyond the scope of
direct examination. Defendant acknowledged that he and his brother used to place
a choke chain on the train tracks so the train would flatten it and he could hang it
off his bicycle as a decoration, but denied trying to wreck the train.
Defendant contends that, because the prosecutor did not raise these incidents
in his case in aggravation, he was estopped from cross-examining defendant about
them. But defendant cites no authority to support his position. Both incidents
were relevant to defendant‟s conduct while under the possible influence of drugs,
an issue defendant raised in his testimony, and therefore were proper subjects of
(2) Plan to Escape
Defendant contends that, during his summation, the prosecutor
misrepresented the evidence concerning defendant‟s plan to escape from jail. The
prosecutor had called inmate Roger Rosenberg to testify about a conversation
between defendant and another inmate that Rosenberg had overheard in which
defendant remarked that security at the jail wing of Highland Hospital was loose,
and that defendant was going to try to get away from Highland with the help of his
brother. Rosenberg stated the plan involved defendant‟s brother‟s being armed
with a weapon. Rosenberg also stated that defendant discussed an alternate plan,
in which defendant‟s brother would bring a gun to court to effect defendant‟s
escape. In his closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Rosenberg‟s testimony
as stating that defendant had said he was trying to get his brother to bring a gun to
this courtroom to effect an escape by killing a deputy marshal.
Defendant contends the prosecutor misrepresented Rosenberg‟s testimony by
adding the details that defendant was planning to escape from the present
courtroom and to kill a deputy marshal. While it is true that these details were not
present in Rosenberg‟s testimony, the prosecutor was entitled to draw reasonable
inferences, such as that the courtroom to be escaped from was the present trial
court, and that a deputy would be killed in the course of the escape. Furthermore,
we see no prejudice to defendant. As noted, the trial court instructed the jury that
the arguments of counsel were not evidence, and that the jury should rely on its
own recollection of a witness‟s testimony.
d. Attacks on Defendant and Defense Witnesses
Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by characterizing
defendant as an “insidious little bastard,” with “no redeeming social value,” and
being “without feeling” and “without sensitivity.” Because trial counsel failed to
object, the claim is forfeited on appeal. Moreover, we do not find the prosecutor‟s
comments about lack of social value, feeling, and sensitivity rise to the level of
misconduct given the brutal and violent nature of the stabbing murder here. (See
People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 953.) As to the prosecutor‟s use of an
insulting epithet, even assuming it crossed the line between vigorous argument and
unjustified insult, we conclude that it would not have inflamed the jury, given the
facts in this case.
Defendant also contends the prosecutor improperly offered his own opinion
when he stated that defendant had “an antisocial personality,” and that he was a
“sociopath,” “without feeling.” Once again, trial counsel failed to object, and the
claim is therefore forfeited on appeal. On the merits, the prosecutor was using
language in common currency to describe his interpretation of the evidence, not
improperly stating an expert opinion. (See People v. Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th
at p. 1173 [“label of sociopath,” meaning “someone who acts without conscience
or remorse,” appropriate when based on the facts of the crime].)
Defendant contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by expressing
animosity toward various defense witnesses, the most notable being his reference
to defense expert witness Dr. Basford as “that charlatan” in closing argument.
Defendant forfeited this claim by failing to object. Furthermore, the gist of the
prosecutor‟s argument was that Basford was not qualified to render an expert
opinion about neurology and that he only had infrequent contact with defendant
during the three years he claimed to be treating him. Even assuming that the
epithet “charlatan” improperly suggested fraud or other unethical conduct, we
conclude there was no prejudice.
2. Assertedly Improper Admission of Evidence
Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-
examine defendant‟s former defense attorney, Susan Sawyer, about her
relationship with defendant, and in allowing the prosecutor to call former
courtroom bailiff, Kathy Boyovich, to impeach Sawyer‟s testimony. Defendant
also contends the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to inquire about
defendant‟s vulgar tattoos, and about statements that defendant had assertedly
made to his former probation officers about reforming himself.
a. Testimony of Susan Sawyer
Defense counsel called Susan Sawyer during the penalty phase. She testified
that, when she represented defendant during his first trial, she frequently met with
him in the same room without any sheriffs present and never felt physically
threatened. She maintained contact with defendant even after their professional
relationship terminated at the end of his first trial. She considered his “redeeming
qualities” to be that he was a hard worker, showed talent in his art projects, and
had written her several thank-you notes. In cross-examination, the prosecutor
asked Sawyer whether she had any romantic feelings towards defendant, which
she denied. Defense counsel‟s objection to the question was overruled on the
ground that it went towards the issue of the witness‟s bias or motive. She also
denied having any maternal feelings towards defendant. When asked whether she
had ever touched defendant other than with a handshake, she stated she had
touched him on the shoulder.
Evidence Code section 780 permits a jury to “consider in determining the
credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or
disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including . . . : [¶] . . . [¶]
. . . [t]he existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive.” (Evid.
Code, § 780, subd. (f).) Defendant contends that because Sawyer had defended
defendant in his first trial, her bias or interest was already apparent, and that there
was no basis for introducing additional evidence of bias. But the prosecutor‟s
cross-examination of Sawyer went towards bias based on a personal rather than a
professional relationship. The prosecutor‟s questioning therefore was not
cumulative. Furthermore, to the extent that defendant contends Evidence Code
section 780 limits inquiry into only one type of bias at a time, he presents no
authority for that proposition.
b. Testimony of Kathy Boyovich
Outside the presence of the jury, the prosecutor indicated his intention to call
former courtroom bailiff, Kathy Boyovich, in rebuttal to testify that Sawyer‟s
physical contact with defendant “was more of a caressing nature” than Sawyer
indicated in her testimony. The court overruled defense counsel‟s relevancy
objection, stating the testimony could go towards Sawyer‟s bias, interest, or
prejudice. The court also denied defense counsel‟s request to have the court hear
Boyovich‟s testimony first to determine its probative value.
Boyovich testified that Sawyer engaged in “a lot of physical contact with
him,” that she was constantly “fixing his hair or rubbing his head,” and that she
constantly put her left arm around him. The prosecutor asked Boyovich whether
the physical contact disturbed her, to which she answered yes. Defense counsel
objected, and the trial court overruled the objection on the basis that Boyovich had
been in charge of security in the courtroom. Boyovich testified that the type of
physical contact she saw between Sawyer and defendant was something she had
never seen between a lawyer and client in her time at the court.
In a relatively lengthy cross-examination, defense counsel asked Boyovich to
clarify what it was about Sawyer‟s behavior that disturbed her. Initially
interpreting the question as relating to her personal feelings, she stated that she
was “repulsed” by the behavior, and when pressed as to why she would be
offended that “someone expressed affection” to someone who was on trial, she
stated that it was probably because that someone was Jack Friend. She added that
her reaction to Sawyer‟s behavior was also based on the fact that she had “never
seen that kind of relationship between an attorney and a client.” Focusing on why
Sawyer‟s behavior concerned Boyovich from the perspective of security, defense
counsel asked whether the physical contact concerned her because she was
thought that Sawyer was going to pass defendant a weapon. Boyovich answered
that she was not worried about that, but mentioned that at one point she had
prevented Sawyer from passing coffee to defendant, since “hot coffee could be
used as weapon.” Defense counsel asked her whether she was the only bailiff
present in the courtroom during the time she served at defendant‟s trial. Unable to
remember specifically, she surmised there must have been a second deputy based
on defendant‟s jail classification at the time, which was administrative
segregation. Pressed by defense counsel to describe whether and how defendant
had ever presented a security threat to her in the courtroom, she stated that “there
was a high security level used with Jack Friend based on his past record while in
custody,” and that “you had to be security conscious with him around based on his
record while in custody.”
Defendant contends the court erred in allowing the prosecution to call
Boyovich as a rebuttal witness because her testimony was irrelevant and
cumulative. However, the scope of rebuttal lies within the trial court‟s discretion.
(People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, superseded by statute on another
ground as stated in Verdin v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1096, 1106.)
Boyovich‟s testimony was relevant to impeach Sawyer‟s testimony about the way
she touched defendant, which in turn was relevant to whether she was biased
because of a personal relationship with him. Defendant contends the trial court
erred in denying defendant‟s request for a hearing concerning Boyovich‟s
testimony outside the presence of the jury, either under Evidence Code section 402
or under People v. Philips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29. But a hearing was required under
neither. Evidence Code section 400 et seq., sets forth the rules for determining the
existence or nonexistence of a preliminary fact when the parties dispute its
existence. (People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 897.) With respect to
Boyovich‟s testimony, there was no disputed preliminary fact at issue. In Phillips,
we admonished that “in many cases, it may be advisable for the trial court to
conduct a preliminary inquiry before the penalty phase to determine whether there
is substantial evidence to prove each element” of other violent crimes the
prosecution intends to introduce in aggravation under section 190.3, factor (b).
(People v. Phillips, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 72, fn. 25; People v. Boyer (2006) 38
Cal.4th 412, 476, fn. 48.) But Boyovich‟s testimony was offered in rebuttal to
Sawyer‟s; it did not involve evidence of other violent crimes the prosecutor
intended to offer in aggravation.
In a related argument, defendant contends Boyovich‟s testimony amounted to
unauthorized evidence in aggravation, of which defendant was given no notice.
Defendant contends Boyovich‟s testimony was damaging to defendant because
she indicated her personal repugnance towards defendant, described his jail
security classification, and described her security concerns in the courtroom based
on that classification, including the possibility that he might use hot coffee as a
weapon. Defendant may be correct that none of these details was particularly
flattering, but he is precluded from assigning error to the court or the prosecutor
because all of the testimony he now complains of was elicited in the course of
defense counsel‟s cross-examination of Boyovich.
c. Questions About Defendant’s Vulgar Tattoos
As described, ante, at page 101, in cross-examination, the prosecutor asked
defendant whether he had a vulgar phrase tattooed in his mouth and on other parts
of his body. The trial court overruled defense objections to the questions on the
ground the questions were permissible cross-examination because they pertained
to defendant‟s testimony about his religious convictions. Defendant contends
there is simply no connection between defendant‟s profession of his Christian
beliefs and his having vulgar tattoos on his body. Even assuming the presence of
these tattoos was irrelevant to defendant‟s currently professed Christian beliefs,
we see no prejudice. Defendant‟s own testimony at the penalty phase painted
himself as being from the proverbial “wrong side of the tracks,” and the jury
would not have been inflamed by learning that defendant had tattoos, even vulgar
d. Questions About Defendant’s Alleged Past Claims to Reform
As described, ante, at page 102, in cross-examination, the prosecutor asked
defendant whether he had made statements to several of his past probation officers
indicating his intention to reform himself based on his religious convictions, and
showed him letters in which the purported statements were made. Defendant
contends that, because the letters were not authenticated, the trial court erred in
allowing the prosecutor to ask defendant about the representations in the letters.
But the basis of the court‟s ruling was that the prosecutor could ask defendant
about the sentiments made in the letters regardless of whether defendant had
written those particular letters. To the extent that defense counsel objected only
on the basis of defendant‟s actual authorship of the letters, defendant‟s claim
concerning the relevance of the statements themselves is forfeited. Furthermore,
on the merits, we reject defendant‟s claim that the prosecutor‟s questions about
defendant‟s past claims of religious conversion should have been excluded as
irrelevant. Defendant had made his commitment to Christianity since his
incarceration the center of his testimony in mitigation. Therefore the prosecutor
was permitted to inquire whether defendant had made professions of religious
commitment in the past that he had failed to keep.
3. Challenges to California’s Death Penalty Law
Defendant raises various challenges to California‟s death penalty law. We
affirm the decisions that have rejected similar claims, and decline to reconsider
such authorities, as follows:
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 [intercase proportionality review not
required by the federal Constitution].)
The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional because it fails to allocate
the burden of proof — or establish a standard of proof — for finding the existence
of an aggravating factor, or because it does not require the jury to find that the
aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, or that death is the appropriate
penalty. (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 618; People v. Stitely (2005) 35
Cal.4th 514, 573.) The United States Supreme Court‟s recent decisions
interpreting the Sixth Amendment‟s jury trial guarantee (Cunningham v.
California (2007) 549 U.S. 270; United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220;
Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 961; Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584;
Apprendi v. New Jersey, supra, 530 U.S. 466) have not altered our conclusions in
this regard. (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 167; People v. Hoyos, supra,
41 Cal.4th at p. 926.)
The penalty phase instructions were not defective in failing to assign a
burden of persuasion regarding the jury‟s penalty decision (People v. Smith
(2005) 35 Cal.4th 334, 370-371), or in failing to require juror unanimity on the
aggravating factors (People v. Abilez, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 533).
The phrases “so substantial” and “warranted” in CALJIC No. 8.88 are not
unconstitutionally vague. (People v. Salcido, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 117; People
v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 13 Cal.4th 1, 123; People v. Arias (1996) 13
Cal.4th 92, 170-71.) CALJIC No. 8.88 is not defective for failing to inform the
jury as to which side bore the burden of persuading it of the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of a penalty of death in the case. (People v. Coffman and
Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 124.) Nor was the court required to instruct the
jury that if the aggravating circumstances did not outweigh those in mitigation, a
sentence of life without the possibility of parole was mandatory. (Ibid.)
Section 190.3, factor (a), is neither vague nor overbroad, and does not
impermissibly permit arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.
(People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1165.) The jury may properly consider
evidence of unadjudicated criminal activity under section 190.3., factor (b).
(People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 499.) The court need not delete
inapplicable statutory factors or designate aggravating and mitigating factors.
(People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1064.) The use of the certain
adjectives such as “extreme” and “substantial” in the list of mitigating factors in
section 190.3 does not render the statute unconstitutional. (People v. Prieto
(2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 276.) Written findings regarding the aggravating factors
are not constitutionally required. (Id. at p. 275.)
The death penalty law does not deny capital defendants equal protection.
(People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 913.)
International law does not prohibit a sentence of death rendered in
accordance with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements.
(People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1164.)
D. Cumulative Error
Defendant contends the cumulative effect of the asserted guilt and penalty
phase errors require reversal of his conviction and death sentence even if none of
the errors is prejudicial individually. We conclude that any errors or assumed
errors were nonprejudicial, whether reviewed separately or cumulatively.
The guilt and penalty judgments are affirmed.
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion People v. Friend
Original Appeal XXX
Opinion No. S027264
Date Filed: July 20, 2009
Judge: Alfred A. Delucchi
Attorneys for Appellant:
Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Denise Anton and
Evan Young, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.
Attorneys for Respondent:
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson and Dane R. Gillette,
Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Bruce Ortega, Glenn R.
Pruden and Gregg E. Zywicke, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Deputy State Public Defender
221 Main Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Gregg E. Zywicke
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-3664
Automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
|Date:||Citation:||Docket Number:||Category:||Status:||Cross Referenced Cases:|
|Mon, 07/20/2009||47 Cal. 4th 1, 211 P.3d 520, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1||S027264||Automatic Appeal||closed; remittitur issued|| |
FRIEND (JACK WAYNE) ON H.C. (S150208)
|1||The People (Respondent)|
Represented by Attorney General - San Francisco Office
Gregg E. Zywicke, Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA
|2||Friend, Jack Wayne (Appellant)|
San Quentin State Prison
Represented by E. Evans Young
Office of the State Public Defender
221 Main Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA
|3||Friend, Jack Wayne (Appellant)|
San Quentin State Prison
Represented by Office Of The State Public Defender-Sf
Denise Anton, Senior Deputy State Public Defender
221 Main Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA
|Jul 20 2009||Opinion: Affirmed|
|Jun 19 1992||Judgment of death|
|Jun 23 1992||Filed certified copy of Judgment of Death Rendered|
|Nov 21 1995||Counsel appointment order filed|
Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, Lynne S. Coffin, Esq., is hereby appointed to represent appellant on his automatic appeal now pending in this court, including any related habeas proceedings.
|Dec 20 1995||Application for Extension of Time filed|
By Applt to request correction of Record.
|Dec 22 1995||Extension of Time application Granted|
To Applt To 2-26-96 To request Corr. of Record.
|Feb 23 1996||Application for Extension of Time filed|
By Applt to request correction of the Record.
|Feb 28 1996||Extension of Time application Granted|
To Applt To 4-26-96 To request Corr. of Record.
|May 1 1996||Application for Extension of Time filed|
By Applt to request correction of the Record.
|May 6 1996||Filed:|
Suppl Declaration of Lynne Coffin in support of request for Ext. of Time.
|May 7 1996||Extension of Time application Granted|
To Applt To 6-25-96 To request Corr. of Record.
|Jun 24 1996||Application for Extension of Time filed|
By Applt to request correction of the Record.
|Jun 27 1996||Extension of Time application Granted|
To Applt To 8-26-96 To request Corr. of Record.
|Aug 23 1996||Application for Extension of Time filed|
By Applt to request correction of the Record.
|Aug 28 1996||Extension of Time application Granted|
To Applt To 10-25-96 To request Corr. of Record.
|Oct 24 1996||Received:|
Copy of Applt's Requst to correct, Augment, Settle Record, & Examine Sealed Transcripts (25 Pp.)
|Nov 1 1996||Motion filed|
By Applt to appoint Andrew S. Love as Second Counsel.
|Nov 8 1996||Filed:|
Suppl Decl of Andrew S. Love in support of motion for appointment of Assoc. Counsel.
|Dec 11 1996||Order filed:|
Appellant's motion for appointment of second counsel granted. Andrew S. Love is hereby appointed as associate counsel to represent appellant Jack Wayne Friend on his automatic appeal and in any related habeas corpus proceedings.
|Dec 26 1996||Change of Address filed for:|
Attys Lynne S. Coffin and Andrew S. Love.
|Jan 24 1997||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Jun 19 2000||Note:|
Record not filed - certified Record (Clerk's Transcripts) returned to Superior Court (Confidential and Non-Confidential Material Mixed)
|Jun 22 2000||Change of Address filed for:|
Atty Lynne Coffin and Andrew Love
|Aug 14 2000||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Aug 24 2000||Record on appeal filed|
C-32 (8,620 pp.) and R-137 (13,365 pp.) including material under seal; Clerk's Transcript includes 2,241 pages of Juror Questionnaires.
|Aug 24 2000||Appellant's opening brief letter sent, due:|
|Aug 30 2000||Motion to withdraw as counsel filed|
By atty Lynne Coffin
|Aug 30 2000||Motion for appointment of counsel filed|
|Aug 31 2000||Compensation awarded counsel|
|Sep 13 2000||Order appointing State Public Defender filed|
Good cause appearing, the application of appointed lead and associate counsel for permission to withdraw as attorneys of record for appellant Jack Wayne Friend, filed 8-30-2000, is granted. The order appointing Lynne S. Coffin as counsel of record for appellant Jack Wayne Friend, filed 11-21-95, is hereby vacated, and the order appointing Andrew S. Love as associate counsel of record for appellant Jack Wayne Friend, filed 12-11-96, is hereby vacated. The State Public Defender is hereby appointed as attorney of record to represent Jack Wayne Friend for both the direct appeal and related state habeas corpus/executive clemency proceedings, in the above automatic appeal now pending in this court.
|Sep 25 2000||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (1st request)
|Sep 28 2000||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 12/4/2000 to file AOB.
|Oct 16 2000||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Nov 30 2000||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (2nd request)
|Dec 4 2000||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 2/2/2001 to file AOB.
|Dec 12 2000||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Jan 10 2001||Filed:|
Request by inmate for dual representation
|Jan 10 2001||Filed:|
Request by counsel for dual representation appointment
|Jan 30 2001||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (3rd request)
|Feb 5 2001||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 4/3/2001 to file AOB.
|Feb 13 2001||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Apr 2 2001||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (4th request)
|Apr 6 2001||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 6/4/2001 to file AOB.
|Apr 16 2001||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Jun 4 2001||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (5th request)
|Jun 7 2001||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 8/3/2001 to file AOB.
|Jun 15 2001||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Aug 2 2001||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (6th request)
|Aug 3 2001||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Aug 21 2001||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 10/2/2001 to file AOB.
|Sep 27 2001||Application for Extension of Time filed|
To file AOB. (7th request)
|Oct 2 2001||Filed:|
Suppl. declaration in support of 7th request for extension of time to tile AOB.
|Oct 3 2001||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Oct 10 2001||Extension of Time application Granted|
To 12/3/2001 to file AOB.
|Nov 28 2001||Request for extension of time filed|
to file AOB. (8th request)
|Nov 28 2001||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Dec 3 2001||Extension of time granted|
To 2/1/2002 to file AOB. Dep. State PD Kwan anticipates filing the AOB by 10/3/2002. Four 60-day extensions totaling 240 addl. days are contemplated.
|Jan 25 2002||Request for extension of time filed|
To file AOB. (8th request)
|Jan 25 2002||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Feb 5 2002||Extension of time granted|
To 4/2/2002 to file AOB.
|Mar 27 2002||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Mar 27 2002||Request for extension of time filed|
To file AOB. (9th request)
|Apr 12 2002||Extension of time granted|
To 6/3/2002 to file AOB.
|May 29 2002||Request for extension of time filed|
To file AOB. (10th request)
|May 29 2002||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Jun 3 2002||Extension of time granted|
To 8/2/2002 to file AOB. Dep. State Public Defender Kwan anticipates filing that brief by 1/28/2003. Only three further extensions totaling 179 additional days will be granted.
|Jul 29 2002||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Jul 29 2002||Request for extension of time filed|
To file AOB. (11th request)
|Aug 1 2002||Extension of time granted|
To 10/1/2002 to file AOB. Two further extensions totaling 119 additional days will be granted. Extension is based on the representation by the State Public Defender that the AOB will be filed by 1/28/2003.
|Sep 27 2002||Request for extension of time filed|
To file appellant's opening brief. (12th request)
|Sep 27 2002||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Oct 2 2002||Extension of time granted|
To 12/2/2002 to file appellant's opening brief. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Susan Ten Kwan's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 1/28/2003. After that date, only one further extension totaling 57 additioal days will be granted.
|Nov 26 2002||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Nov 26 2002||Request for extension of time filed|
To file appellant's opening brief. (13th request)
|Dec 6 2002||Extension of time granted|
To 2/3/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, no further extension will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|Dec 20 2002||Filed:|
Notice of service, on appellant, of application for extension of time to file appellant's opening brief on 12/17/2002.
|Jan 31 2003||Request for extension of time filed|
to file AOB. (14th request)
|Feb 6 2003||Extension of time granted|
to 4/4/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only five further extensions totaling 300 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|Apr 1 2003||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (15th request)
|Apr 8 2003||Extension of time granted|
to 6/3/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only four further extensions totaling 240 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any sepatate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|May 27 2003||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (16th request)
|May 27 2003||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Jun 2 2003||Extension of time granted|
to 8/4/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only three further extensions totaling 180 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|Jul 28 2003||Request for extension of time filed|
to file AOB. (17th request)
|Jul 28 2003||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Jul 31 2003||Extension of time granted|
to 10-3-2003 to file AOB. The court anticipates that after that date, only two further extensions totaling 120 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|Sep 26 2003||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (18th request)
|Sep 26 2003||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Oct 1 2003||Extension of time granted|
to 12/2/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only one further extension totaling 60 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorneyh or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|Nov 25 2003||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (25th request)
|Nov 25 2003||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Dec 1 2003||Extension of time granted|
to 2/2/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only one further extension totaling 30 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it.
|Jan 26 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file AOB. (26th request)
|Jan 28 2004||Extension of time granted|
to April 2, 2004 to file appellant's opening brief. After that date, no further extensions will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Denise Anton's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 04/02/2004.
|Mar 26 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Mar 26 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (27th request)
|Apr 1 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 6/1/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. Extension is granted based upon Senior Deputy State Public Defender Denise Anton's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 6/1/2004. After that date, no further extension will be granted.
|May 27 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|May 27 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (28th request)
|May 28 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 6-9-2004 to file AOB. After that date, no further extension will be granted. Extension granted based upon Senior Deputy SPD Denise Anton's representation that she anticipates filing the brief by 6-9-2004.
|Jun 9 2004||Application to file over-length brief filed|
appellant's opening brief. (134,844 word brief w/2 volumes of appendices submitted under separate cover)
|Jun 10 2004||Order filed|
Appellant's application for leave to file over-length opening brief is granted.
|Jun 10 2004||Appellant's opening brief filed|
(134,844 words - 458 pp.)
|Jun 10 2004||Filed:|
Appendices to appellant's opening brief. (2 volumes)
|Jun 24 2004||Received:|
Letter from State Public Defender dated, 6/24/2004, advising that appellant was personally served with the opening brief on 6/15/2004.
|Jul 8 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (1st request)
|Jul 9 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 9/8/2004 to file respondent's brief.
|Jul 30 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Sep 8 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (2nd request)
|Sep 10 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 11/8/2004 to file respondent's brief. After that date, only three further extensions totaling about 150 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Gregg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 4/6/2005.
|Oct 5 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Nov 4 2004||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (3rd request)
|Nov 10 2004||Extension of time granted|
to 1/6/2005 to file respondent's brief. After that date, only two further extensions totaling about 90 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Gregg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing that bruef by 4/6/2005.
|Dec 3 2004||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Jan 6 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (4th request)
|Jan 12 2005||Extension of time granted|
to March 7, 2005 to file the respondent's brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 30 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Greg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by April 6, 2005.
|Feb 2 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Mar 4 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (5th request)
|Mar 9 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 5/6/2005 to file respondent's brief. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Gregg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 5/6/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted.
|Apr 5 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|May 3 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file respondent's brief. (6th request)
|May 10 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 6/6/2005 to file respondent's brief. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Greg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 6/6/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted.
|Jun 2 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Jun 6 2005||Respondent's brief filed|
(59,677 words; 201 pp.)
|Jun 22 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (1st request)
|Jun 23 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 8/26/2005 to file appellant's reply brief.
|Aug 5 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
|Aug 19 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (2nd request)
|Aug 24 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 10/25/2005 to file appellant's reply brief. After that date, only four further extensions totaling about 210 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Senior Deputy State Public Defender Evan Young's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 5/2006.
|Oct 4 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Oct 18 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (3rd request)
|Oct 24 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 12/27/2005 to file appellant's reply brief. After that date, only three further extensions totaling about 150 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Senior Deputy State Public Defender Evan Young's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 5/2006.
|Dec 5 2005||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Dec 20 2005||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (4th request)
|Dec 30 2005||Extension of time granted|
to 2/27/2006 to file the appellant's reply brief. After that date, only three further extensions totaling about 150 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Senior Deputy State Public Defender Evan Young's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 7/2006.
|Feb 3 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Feb 21 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (5th request)
|Feb 28 2006||Extension of time granted|
to April 28, 2006 to file appellant's reply brief. After that date, only two further extensions totaling about 90 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Senior Deputy State based upon Senior Deputy State Public Defender Evan Young's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by July 2006.
|Mar 30 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Apr 21 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's opening brief. (6th request)
|May 1 2006||Extension of time granted|
to June 27, 2006 to file appellant's reply brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 30 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Supervising Deputy based upon Supervising Deputy State Public Defender Denise Anton's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by July 2006.
|May 30 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Jun 20 2006||Request for extension of time filed|
to file appellant's reply brief. (7th request)
|Jun 23 2006||Extension of time granted|
to August 18, 2006 to file appellant's reply brief, based upon Supervising Deputy State Public Defender Denise Anton's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by August 18, 2006. After that date, no further extension will be granted.
|Jul 31 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Aug 17 2006||Appellant's reply brief filed|
(42,532 words; 163 pp.)
|Aug 17 2006||Request for judicial notice filed (AA)|
by appellant. (3 pp.)
|Sep 26 2006||Received:|
letter from Supv. Deputy State PD Anton, dated Sepetmeber 25, 2006, advising appellant was personally served copy of reply brief on September 6, 2006.
|Oct 2 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Dec 1 2006||Counsel's status report received (confidential)|
from State P.D.
|Feb 13 2007||Related habeas corpus petition filed (concurrent)|
case no. S150208.
|Apr 10 2007||Filed:|
appellant's "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opening Brief." (26,420 word brief submitted under separate cover)
|Apr 16 2007||Order filed|
Appellant's "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opening Brief" is granted. Any supplemental respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before May 16, 2007.
|Apr 16 2007||Supplemental brief filed|
appellant's supplemental opening brief. (5352 word per amended certificate of word count; 19 pp.)
|May 14 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file supplemental respondent's brief. (1st request)
|May 18 2007||Extension of time granted|
to July 16, 2007 to file the supplemental brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 14 additional days is contemplated. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Gregg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by July 30, 2007.
|Jul 16 2007||Request for extension of time filed|
to file supplemental respondent's brief. (2nd request)
|Jul 20 2007||Extension of time granted|
Good cause appearing, and based upon Deputy Attorney General Gregg E. Zywicke's representation that he anticipates filing the supplemental respondent's brief by August 2, 2007, counsel's request for an extension of time in which to file that brief is granted to August 2, 2007. After that date, no further extension is contemplated.
|Aug 1 2007||Supplemental brief filed|
by respondent. (3,407 words; 12 pp.)
|Oct 25 2007||Supplemental reply brief filed (AA)|
by appellant. (885 words, 6 pp)
|Jul 9 2008||Exhibit(s) lodged|
from superior court. People's exhibits-9 & 11 (diagrams), defense exhibits-D, E, U, BB1, BB2 (2-photos), CC1-CC4 (4-photos), DD, second trial defense exhibit D-1.
|Mar 9 2009||Oral argument letter sent|
advising counsel that the court could schedule this case for argument as early as the May calendars, to be held the week of May 4 and the week of May 25, 2009, 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.
|Apr 1 2009||Case ordered on calendar|
to be argued Tuesday, May 5, 2009, at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco
|Apr 10 2009||Received:|
appearance sheet from Deputy State Public Defender Evan Young, indicating 30 minutes for oral agrument for appellant.
|Apr 10 2009||Filed:|
appellant's focus issues letter, dated April 10, 2009.
|Apr 14 2009||Filed:|
respondent's focus issues letter, dated April 13, 2009.
|Apr 14 2009||Received:|
appearance sheet from Deputy Attorney General Gregg Zywicke, indicating 30 minutes for oral argument for respondent.
|Apr 24 2009||Request for judicial notice granted|
Appellant's request, filed on August 17, 2006, for judicial notice of the documents included in the Appendices to Appellant's Opening Brief is granted as to Appendices E and F only. Judicial notice of Appendices A, B, C, and D is denied.
|May 5 2009||Cause argued and submitted|
|Jul 17 2009||Notice of forthcoming opinion posted|
|Jul 20 2009||Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full|
opinion by Baxter, J. -----joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno and Corrigan, JJ.
|Aug 4 2009||Rehearing petition filed|
(1,480 words; 7 pp.)
|Aug 7 2009||Time extended to consider modification or rehearing|
The time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case is hereby extended to and including October 19, 2009, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first.
|Aug 26 2009||Rehearing denied|
The petition for rehearing is denied.
|Aug 26 2009||Remittitur issued|
|Aug 31 2009||Received:|
acknowledgment of receipt of remittitur.
|Jun 10 2004||Appellant's opening brief filed|
(134,844 words - 458 pp.)
|Jun 6 2005||Respondent's brief filed|
(59,677 words; 201 pp.)
|Aug 17 2006||Appellant's reply brief filed|
(42,532 words; 163 pp.)