Filed 4/10/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S037006
v.
MICHAEL JAMES HUGGINS,
Alameda
County
Defendant
and
Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. H-9225
An Alameda County jury convicted Michael James Huggins of one count
each of murder (Pen. Code, § 187),1 burglary (§ 459), and robbery (§ 211). The
jury found true the special-circumstance allegations that defendant committed the
murder in the course of, or immediate flight from, burglary, robbery, and rape or
attempted rape (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), (iii), and (vii), now subd.
(a)(17)(A), (C), and (G)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant
personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5) and inflicted great bodily injury on the
victim (§ 12022.7). The court, sitting without a jury, found true allegations that
defendant previously had been convicted of two serious felonies within the
meaning of section 667, along with a third prior felony conviction. The jury was
unable to reach a verdict on the penalty and the court declared a mistrial. A new
1
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
1
jury was impaneled, and it returned a verdict of death. The trial court entered
judgment accordingly. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)
Except for a sentence enhancement for prior convictions under section 667,
subdivision (a), which must be set aside (see post, p. 97), the judgment is affirmed.
COMPETENCY TRIAL BEFORE GUILT PHASE
Defendant claims that instructional error at a competency trial before the
guilt phase violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the federal Constitution, as codified in section 1367.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 1986, while the present criminal charges were pending, defense counsel
represented to the court that defendant was either unwilling or, because of mental
problems, unable to communicate with him for extended periods. Counsel
requested a competency evaluation in Alameda County Municipal Court “to see if
that’s a matter of willfulness on his part or an inability on his part.” The municipal
court declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competency, and the Alameda
County Superior Court ordered a trial to determine defendant’s mental
competency.
At the competency trial, which was held before a jury in 1987, expert and lay
witnesses presented conflicting testimony about defendant’s mental state.
Defendant’s witnesses testified that he lacked the capacity to understand the
nature of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, or to assist in
preparing his defense.
James O. Palmer, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, testified that he
administered psychological tests to defendant, but defendant acted so bizarrely
that Dr. Palmer “thought it was possible that he was just putting me on.” He
suspected defendant was malingering at times. But at times defendant would
2
neglect to malinger and Dr. Palmer was able to observe him. When Dr. Palmer
administered a Rorschach test, defendant appeared “not [to be] malingering,” but
instead to be “confused.” Dr. Palmer opined that defendant may have given
absurd answers to test questions because he admittedly had used phencyclidine
(PCP) in jail. Tests that Dr. Palmer administered on a later occasion revealed brain
damage. Dr. Palmer concluded that defendant was not competent to stand trial.
John B. Peschau, Jr., M.D., a psychiatrist, testified for defendant that
defendant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Dr. Peschau said that during the
examination defendant tried to malinger, but that his malingering was an overlay
that did not detract from Dr. Peschau’s observations of his genuine mental illness.
Dr. Peschau agreed that if defendant’s behavior were markedly different in jail
than when being examined for signs of mental illness, it would suggest
malingering. At one point, defendant referred to a nonexistent rug on the floor;
Dr. Peschau did not believe that this constituted an attempt to malinger, but could
not explain defendant’s comment.
Dr. Peschau believed that a criminal defendant has nothing to gain by being
found incompetent to stand trial. In any event, Dr. Peschau did not believe that
defendant was sophisticated enough to realize he might benefit from malingering.
The People’s expert witnesses disagreed with the conclusions of the defense
witnesses. Anthony Bitting, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, concluded that
defendant was malingering. He described defendant as feigning a catatonic
manner toward him in a jailhouse interview. True catatonia would manifest itself
differently. Later, when defendant thought he was out of Dr. Bitting’s sight, he
interacted with other inmates normally; when he saw Dr. Bitting watching him, he
reverted to his feigned catatonia. Dr. Bitting stated to defendant that he knew
defendant was faking symptoms of mental illness, and told the jury that defendant
was not mentally ill. He explained to the jury that even “people . . . whose
3
thoughts are very scrambled . . . . know you’re there,” and that defendant was
playacting.
Lay witnesses testified that defendant’s behavior in jail was unremarkable.
Defendant told one sheriff’s deputy that he was glad to be back from the nearby
Highland Hospital so he could resume, in the deputy’s words, “talking to normal
people or something [of] that nature.” The deputy also testified that defendant
behaved normally during hours reserved for inmates to socialize outside their
cells. But he also testified that defendant was kept on a 15-minute suicide watch,
a status held by about 1 percent of the inmates at the jail.
There was additional evidence that defendant feigned symptoms of mental
illness or low intelligence to try to avoid standing trial. A different sheriff’s
deputy testified that defendant had filled out a number of jail commissary order
forms accurately and legibly. The forms required defendant to write his name,
which he did. Earlier, Dr. Palmer had testified that defendant claimed to be
illiterate, and that when Dr. Palmer asked him to sign his name, he printed out the
letters “t-e-m-o-d.”
A third sheriff’s deputy confirmed that defendant interacted normally with
other jail inmates.
Maurice Beaulieu, M.D., a psychiatrist and the chief of the psychiatric
custody facility at Highland Hospital, testified for the prosecution. Defendant had
been sent there for evaluation because he had created a noose in jail and was
considered a suicide risk. Defendant claimed to be hearing voices and proclaimed
himself “King of the world.” To determine if he was inventing symptoms, Dr.
Beaulieu placed him on Haldol, “a rather potent antipsychotic medication” that
should alleviate genuine hallucinations. Haldol had no effect, and Dr. Beaulieu
observed defendant interacting normally with the nursing staff but “selectively
speaking about voices when speaking with Dr. [Arend] Boer or myself.” Dr.
4
Beaulieu concluded that defendant was malingering. He ordered defendant placed
on a suicide watch on his return to jail because he was “very invested in looking as
sick as he could, and I felt that . . . he might make some kind of suicide gesture
where he could make a mistake and actually harm himself.”
Arend Boer, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist on the Highland Hospital
staff, also testified for the prosecution. He quickly concluded that defendant was
malingering. Defendant “did all kinds of little things that mentally ill people do
not do.” And defendant “is very street-wise and very prison-wise.” Defendant
exaggerated abnormal behavior when taking the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI) test. Dr. Boer concluded that defendant “is
competent and he is willfully, volitionally thwarting the [penal] process.” Dr.
Boer testified on cross-examination that defendant might have a degree of mental
illness, but that it was secondary to his feigning symptoms to avoid prosecution.
As stated, a jury found defendant competent to stand trial.
DISCUSSION
I.
Claim of Instructional Error
Defendant asserts that the trial court’s oral instruction to the jury at the
competency hearing denied him due process of law and did not conform to
subdivision (a) of section 1367, which, at the time of trial, provided: “A person
cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment while such person is mentally
incompetent. A defendant is mentally incompetent for purposes of this chapter if,
as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable
to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the
5
conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” (As amended by Stats. 1980, ch. 547,
§ 7, pp. 1509-1510.)2
The standard jury instruction based on section 1367 was CALJIC No. 4.10,
which, at the time of trial, stated:
“Although on some subjects his mind may be deranged or unsound, a
person charged with a criminal offense is deemed mentally competent to be tried
for the crime charged against him:
“1. If he is capable of understanding the nature and purpose of the
proceedings against him; and
“2. If he comprehends his own status and condition in reference to such
proceedings; and
“3. If he is able [to assist his attorney in conducting his defense] [to
conduct his own defense] in a rational manner.
“The defendant is presumed to be mentally competent and he has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally
incompetent as a result of mental disorder [or developmental disability].”
(CALJIC No. 4.10 (1984 rev.).)
The trial court instructed the jury in language that, according to the reporter’s
transcript, differed slightly from the standard jury instruction.3 The reporter’s
transcript reflects that the court instructed the jury that “[a]lthough on some
2
The current version of the quoted portion of section 1367 is the same as that
in effect when defendant’s competency was tried, except that the word “such” has
been replaced with the word “that.” (Stats. 1992, ch. 722, § 10, p. 3354.)
3
The record before us does not reflect that the jury was given written
instructions. We reiterate our recommendation that in capital cases trial courts
provide juries with written instructions “to cure the inadvertent errors that may
occur when the instructions are read aloud.” (People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th
598, 673.)
6
subject his mind may be deranged or unsound, a person charged with a criminal
offense is deemed mentally competent to be charged with the crime against him, if
he is capable of understanding the nature and purpose of the proceedings against
him; second, if he comprehends his own status and condition in reference to such
proceedings. [¶] If he is able to assist his attorney in conducting his defense in a
rational manner, the defendant is presumed to be mentally competent, and he has
the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally
incompetent, as a result of mental defect, or disorder.”
The most significant differences between the court’s instruction as reflected
in the reporter’s transcript and the standard instruction are that the word “and”
does not appear between the three clauses that are identified by number in the
standard instruction and that the period at the end of the third such clause is
missing so that this clause becomes part of the next sentence. Defendant relies
upon these differences to argue that the instruction was defective because
“[i]nstead of instructing the jury in accord with section 1367 and CALJIC No.
4.10 to deem [him] competent to stand trial only if he is capable of understanding
the nature of the criminal proceedings and assisting counsel in the conduct of a
defense in a rational manner, the trial court permitted the jury to find [him]
competent if it found either of these facts true . . . .”
Of course, when the court orally instructs the jury, the court reporter cannot
always capture and report the court’s intended punctuation. Speakers seldom
indicate punctuation as they speak, leaving the court reporter with the always
difficult, and sometimes impossible, task of supplying punctuation that reflects the
speaker’s cadence and inflection. Although we rely upon the court reporter to
accurately record the words spoken in court, we are not bound by the court
reporter’s interpretation of the speaker’s intended meaning as shown by the
punctuation inserted by the reporter.
7
In the present case, the trial court read the words of the standard instruction
nearly verbatim. But the punctuation supplied by the court reporter suggests that
the court misread the standard instruction by disregarding the period at the end of
the third numbered clause and reading that clause as if it were an introductory
clause in the next sentence, which would have altered the instruction’s meaning.
We are not convinced, however, that the court misread the standard instruction.
As noted above, we are not bound by the punctuation supplied by the court
reporter. Because the court clearly was reading a standard instruction, it is far
more likely that the punctuation supplied by the court reporter failed to accurately
reflect the meaning conveyed by the court’s oral instructions than that the court
misread the standard instruction. We can conclude with confidence, therefore, that
the court read the standard instruction as it was written and did not merge the final
two sentences of the standard instruction as reflected in the reporter’s transcript.4
Our conclusion is supported by the fact that the final, merged sentence of the
court’s oral instruction as reflected in the transcript does not make sense.
According to the reporter’s transcript, the court instructed the jury: “If he is able
to assist his attorney in conducting his defense in a rational manner, the defendant
is presumed to be mentally competent, and he has the burden of proving by a
4
The dissent is correct that there are three “possible explanations for the
differences between the reporter’s transcript and the standard CALJIC instruction”
(dis. opn. by Kennard, J., post, at p. 4): that the court deliberately altered the
instruction, that it misread the instruction, or that the court reporter supplied the
wrong punctuation. But only the last of these three possible explanations is
reasonable. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court
deliberately altered the standard instruction without consulting the parties. And
we disagree with the dissent that “misreading by the trial court is just as likely as
mispunctuation by the reporter.” (Id., at p. 3.) The trial judge was reading from a
standard instruction given routinely in trial courts. It is inconceivable that the trial
court misread the instruction in the nonsensical manner reflected by the
punctuation supplied by the court reporter.
8
preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally incompetent . . . .” It would
strain credulity to imagine that the court instructed the jury that defendant is
presumed to be competent only if he is able to assist his attorney in conducting his
defense. As the record before us demonstrates, the court was well aware that a
defendant always is presumed to be competent, not just if he or she is able to assist
his counsel. Also, whether a defendant is able to assist his or her attorney in
conducting the defense is part of the test for determining whether he or she is
competent and does not affect the fact that the defendant is presumed to be
competent.5 To give credence to the erroneous punctuation in the reporter’s
transcript would produce an anomalous result. It would be illogical to find
someone competent who either was incapable of understanding the nature and
purpose of the proceeding or unable to assist his or her attorney in a rational
manner.
Having concluded that, despite the punctuation supplied by the court reporter,
the trial court did not misread CALJIC No. 4.10 by omitting the period at the end
of the third numbered clause, it remains that the reporter’s transcript reflects that
the court omitted the word “and” from between the three numbered clauses. This
minor deviation from the text of the standard instruction, however, did not
materially alter the instruction’s meaning. Even with the word “and” omitted, the
instruction the court read adequately conveyed that in order to be deemed mentally
competent, defendant must be capable of understanding the nature and purpose of
5
The dissent is correct that, as a general rule, the determination of the
accuracy of the reporter’s transcript is best decided by the trial court. But we may
depart from this general rule when remanding the case for a hearing would only
confirm what already is obvious from the record before us; the punctuation
supplied by the court reporter did not accurately reflect the meaning of the
standard instruction read by the trial court.
9
the proceedings against him, comprehend his own status and condition, and be
able to assist his attorney.
Moreover, even if the minor variation between the standard instruction and
the trial court’s instruction created ambiguity, it did not infringe on defendant’s
due process rights.
With regard to criminal trials, “not every ambiguity, inconsistency, or
deficiency in a jury instruction rises to the level of a due process violation. The
question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the
resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “[A] single instruction to
a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context
of the overall charge.” ’ [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the
question is whether there is a ‘ “reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the
challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” (Middleton v.
McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437.) Assuming for purposes of discussion that this
standard applies in a competency trial or other competency proceeding (see People
v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 899-900; People v. Johnwell (2004) 121
Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274, fn. 5), the question, then, is whether the difference
between the standard version of CALJIC No. 4.10 and the version the trial court
recited made it reasonably likely that the jury misunderstood the applicable law.
We discern no such reasonable likelihood here. As stated, we believe that the
trial court instructed the jury correctly in all material respects, even if it did omit
the word “and.” The court did not expressly speak in the disjunctive. If the
court’s instruction, as read to the jury, reasonably suggested otherwise, we believe
that the record would reflect expressions of concern by counsel, for it would be
illogical for the court to tell the jury it could find defendant competent even if, in
essence, he was not capable of understanding that he was on trial, as long as he yet
could somehow assist his attorney in a rational manner. Counsel was aware of the
10
proper instructional language: the prosecutor correctly read the CALJIC
instruction in his argument to the jury, and in his responding argument defense
counsel agreed with the prosecutor’s definition. We cannot believe that counsel
would have remained silent had the court delivered an instruction that was
obviously illogical. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s teaching that a
“commonsense understanding of the instructions in the light of all that has taken
place at the trial [is] likely to prevail over technical hairsplitting” (Boyde v.
California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 381) during the deliberation process, we consider
the arguments of counsel in deciding whether the jury misunderstood the
instructions (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 526-527). There is no
reasonable likelihood that the minor departure by the court from the language of
the standard instruction in reciting the instruction to the jury caused the jury to
misunderstand its duties in a manner that denied defendant his due process rights.
Moreover, even if error had occurred, we would find it to be harmless under
either the Chapman or Watson standards of prejudice. (Chapman v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
Accordingly, we need not resolve here which standard of prejudice applies. (Cf.
People v. Johnwell, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274-1278 [applying Chapman
to a constitutionally based claim of error in giving instruction regarding
competency]; cf. also People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 198 (conc. opn. of
Mosk, J.) [same]; People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 922 (dis. opn. of
Broussard, J.) [same]; but see People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 222
[applying Watson to a claim of error for failing to give a proposed competency
instruction that was not constitutionally based].) Turning to defendant’s assertion:
Although defendant insists that “the competency trial itself was close,” the record
belies that view. True, defense expert witnesses testified that defendant suffered
from impairments that would render him incompetent to be tried. But the weight
11
of that evidence was diminished by their concessions, and the testimony of
prosecution expert witnesses, that defendant was striving to feign mental illness.
The defense experts conceded that defendant attempted to manipulate their
examinations, but testified that despite those efforts they detected genuine mental
difficulties in him. Expert witnesses for the prosecution opined that defendant was
competent, and there was evidence that defendant acted normally in jail. When
defendant testified on his own behalf at the guilt phase, he was lucid, articulate,
and fully able to comprehend the proceedings and to reason in light of them. He
ably provided a self-justifying account of himself through his testimony, which he
tailored to minimize his culpability. It is plain from the record that defendant had
the ability to consult with his counsel with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding, and had a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.
For all of these reasons, if error had occurred, we would conclude that it was
harmless.
GUILT PHASE
GUILT PHASE FACTS
The evidence showed that on March 8, 1986, defendant broke into Sarah
Anne Lees’s home in Castro Valley, robbed her of her shotgun, and shot her to
death with that shotgun from close range. Defendant admitted killing Lees but
claimed he did so accidentally.
I. Prosecution
Case
The prosecution theorized that defendant broke into Lees’s empty house,
found her shotgun, ambushed her at her front door when she returned home, tried
to rape her, and killed her with the shotgun when she resisted.
Gary Schellenberg, an Alameda County Sheriff’s Department sergeant,
testified that he and a sheriff’s deputy discovered Lees’s body. A criminalist
12
testified that the body was alongside a waterbed, essentially nude from the neck
down. Lees had been shot in the back, and blood was around her, underneath her,
and above her head. A trail of blood led from the house’s entrance to her head,
suggesting she had been dragged. The clothing for her upper body had been
pulled over her head and neck. Petroleum jelly was found on her inner thighs. A
purse was found on top of the bed, with its contents emptied and scattered about.
There was no currency on the premises.
The criminalist also examined Lees’s truck, which had been found
abandoned. He found a shotgun that belonged to Lees and an opened and partly
empty box of ammunition inside, the latter containing 17 live rounds. The shotgun
itself had blood on it and was loaded with two live rounds and one round that had
been expended. The shotgun operated normally and required a normal amount of
trigger pull to discharge—six to seven pounds of force. Lees had been shot from a
distance of six to 18 inches from the shotgun’s muzzle. Defendant’s fingerprint
was recovered from the box of ammunition. His fingerprints also were found on a
door and a shard of glass, which appeared to come from a window of the residence
that had been broken.
A pathologist confirmed that a petroleum jelly-like substance was found on
Lees’s left thigh, right leg, and external genitalia, and that she had been shot in the
center of her back. The wound traveled upward at an angle of about 30 degrees
toward the front of Lees’s body. She had incurred a blunt-force injury to her right
eye near her nose. Her nose was broken, and she had bruises on the right side of
her face and her chin. Her facial bruises could have been caused by a blow from a
shotgun or a similar blunt object. The blunt-force head injuries could have caused
her to be unconscious for a time. Lees had suffered other injuries, including
abrasions on her face, head, and a knuckle. She was still wearing a toe ring,
earrings, and a watch, but had no rings on her fingers. Blood was found on her left
13
breast; there was no wound at that site and it could have been left by a hand. On
cross-examination, the pathologist testified that the angle of the shotgun wound
was consistent with the weapon being parallel to the ground and Lees running
forward.
Lees’s mother, and a good friend of Lees, Carol Correia Tallon, saw Lees on
the day of her death. As was her habit, Lees was wearing a number of items of
gold jewelry, including a ring with three diamonds, two thinner rings, a bracelet,
and a necklace. A police officer testified that defendant was wearing all of these
items when he was arrested.
An Alameda County crime lab criminalist testified that a hair found on Lees’s
left leg and another hair found on her vulva were consistent with defendant’s pubic
hair. That did not mean that the hairs necessarily came from defendant; they could
have come from another or others whose hairs had the same characteristics.
II. Defense
Case
Defendant testified in his own behalf at the guilt phase. He explained that he
was part of a California Youth Authority crew doing maintenance work not far
from Lees’s residence. He had been placed in the Youth Authority’s care after
pleading guilty to two robberies. On March 7, the day before killing Lees, he had
argued with one of his supervisors and had been sent back to the crew bus. The
bus was unguarded, and he decided to escape, simply leaving the bus without
being observed by Youth Authority officials.
After spending a day, a night, and part of another day wandering or resting,
he came upon Lees’s house and broke in, seeking refuge from the police and the
elements. He thought it was an unoccupied weekend or summer cottage because
of its isolated location. He had bypassed other houses because he saw people in
them. He did not intend to steal anything when he broke in (thus, defense counsel
would later argue, defendant had not committed burglary or felony-murder
14
burglary). Once inside, he found a large bottle of wine and consumed about half
of it. He also discovered two marijuana cigarettes and smoked those.
Defendant removed his clothes to nap, fell asleep, and was awakened by the
barking of one of Lees’s dogs. He saw Lees approach the front door and quickly
donned his clothes, which were lying in the hallway. Until she entered the house,
he thought she was a visitor because it was daytime and he did not expect the
owners to arrive before nightfall, by which point he planned to have left the
premises.
Defendant hid, but something had aroused Lees’s suspicions. Once inside,
she went to the bedroom, emerged from it carrying a shotgun, appeared to lock the
front door, and peered out a window as if fearful of an outside prowler. Defendant
panicked because he thought he could not escape. He “rushed out” from his
hiding place and wrested the gun away from Lees. During their struggle, he struck
her in the face with his fist and the gun itself. His principal concern was to escape
with the gun. He then forced Lees into her bedroom and placed the shotgun on a
counter.
A short time later, Lees ran from the bedroom toward the front door.
Defendant grabbed the shotgun from the counter and it accidentally discharged.
He may have wanted to threaten her with it, but he did not intend to shoot.
Lees collapsed by the front door but defendant did not realize that he had
shot her. He thought that she had rendered herself unconscious by colliding with
the door. He left the house immediately because he feared that the police might
discover him there. Finding no keys in Lees’s truck, he returned to the house,
upended her purse and took from its now-exposed contents the car keys, $22.00 in
cash, and the rings the police would recover later. He took these items and the
shotgun to Lees’s truck. Not wanting Lees to lie unconscious in her own blood
15
(which, on cross-examination, he insisted he saw only on Lees’s face), he moved
her body to the bedroom.
Defendant placed petroleum jelly on Lees’s body because he wanted her
mistakenly to think, when she revived, that he had had sexual intercourse with her.
“I was thinking . . . that since she tripped out about giving me the gun, I was
wondering how she would trip when she found out that I didn’t have sexual
intercourse with her, but it seemed like I did.”
Defendant drove away. He paused at one point to consider whether he should
return to check on Lees’s condition, but decided that it was too risky and that she
would revive in due course. He did not recall seeing a box of shotgun shells in the
back of the truck.
On cross-examination, defendant admitted that after he saw Lees approach
the house he could have avoided confronting her by leaving through a sliding glass
door. He was unable to explain why he did not do so.
A criminalist for the Alameda County Sheriff’s crime lab testified that there
was no trace of semen at the crime scene.
A criminalist testified that, in theory, the shotgun could have discharged
accidentally if mishandled.
III.
Prosecution’s Rebuttal Case
A firearms specialist testified that Lees’s shotgun did not have an
“accumulated trigger pull,” meaning that the full amount of force needed to
discharge the weapon was required each time the trigger was pulled. Nor did the
shotgun have a hair trigger. He tested the shotgun to see if it would discharge
accidentally, but he could not make it do so.
16
GUILT PHASE ISSUES
I.
Miranda and Doyle Issues
Defendant claims that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S.
436, were violated by the introduction at trial of parts of a brief conversation that
took place between him and law enforcement officers before he invoked his
Miranda right to counsel. He further claims that presenting this evidence violated
his rights to due process and to the assistance of counsel. (U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, &
14th Amends.) He maintains that the trial court erred when it denied a motion to
exclude his extrajudicial statements.
At a hearing on the motion, a detective sergeant explained that he and a
colleague interviewed defendant in a police interview room after he had been
taken into custody. As the sergeant was plugging in a tape recorder to begin the
formal interview, he explained that he and his colleague were there because
defendant was a suspect in Lees’s murder. Defendant spontaneously admitted
escaping from the California Youth Authority work detail, but denied any contact
with Lees. He then requested a public defender and the formal interview never
occurred. Defendant made his statements before his interrogators could
administer a Miranda advisement to him.
At trial, the detective sergeant related defendant’s statements to the jury. In
closing argument, the prosecutor brought up the falsity of defendant’s statements
to argue that defendant was unworthy of belief and that his story regarding Lees’s
death should be discounted accordingly.
Defendant maintains that permitting the sergeant’s testimony violated
Miranda principles because his statements were elicited during custodial
interrogation before he was cautioned. The People counter that because defendant
volunteered his statements before any questioning began, no Miranda (or Sixth
Amendment) violation occurred. We agree.
17
Defendants who are in custody must be given Miranda warnings before
police officers may interrogate them. (Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291,
297.) Innis explained that “the Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a
person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional
equivalent. That is to say, the term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only
to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police
(other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should
know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the
suspect, rather than the intent of the police.” (Id. at pp. 300-301.)
“ ‘Clearly, not all conversation between an officer and a suspect constitutes
interrogation. The police may speak to a suspect in custody as long as the speech
would not reasonably be construed as calling for an incriminating response.’ ”
(People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 301; see People v. Cunningham (2001) 25
Cal.4th 926, 993.) “Focus[ing] primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect”
(Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, 426 U.S. 291, 301), we conclude that telling
defendant he was a murder suspect did not call on him to confess; rather, the effect
should have been, and indeed was, the opposite: defendant admitted only the
obvious (that he had escaped from a work detail) and denied that he killed Lees.
Moreover, here as in Haley, “ ‘[t]he record does not establish that defendant was
subject to “compelling influences, psychological ploys, or direct questioning.” ’ ”
(Haley, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 301.) There was no Miranda violation.
Citing the decision in Doyle v. Ohio (1976) 426 U.S. 610, defendant also
contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that defendant implicitly
invoked his right to silence by requesting an attorney. Defendant forfeited this
claim by failing to object to the introduction of this evidence at trial. (People v.
Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171.) In any event, we find no error.
18
In Doyle v. Ohio, supra, 426 U.S. 610, 618, the United States Supreme Court
held that “it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to
allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach an explanation
subsequently offered at trial.” “A similar process of reasoning supports the
conclusion that comment which penalizes exercise of the right to counsel is also
prohibited. [Citations.]” (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 878.) But this
does not mean that it always is error to permit evidence that a defendant exercised
his right to counsel.
In Crandell, the prosecutor played a tape recording of a police interview with
the defendant, conducted shortly after his arrest, during which the defendant said
he wanted an attorney. During argument, the prosecutor invited the jury to play
the recording during deliberations and listen to the defendant’s “ ‘tone of voice’ ”
when he asked for an attorney, which the prosecutor argued was a “ ‘flippant
response.’ ” (People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 878.) We rejected the
defendant’s argument that this violated the rule announced in Doyle: “Here the
evidence of defendant’s invocation of the right to counsel was received without
objection and the remarks of the prosecutor did not invite the jury to draw any
adverse inference from either the fact or the timing of defendant’s exercise of his
constitutional right.” (Ibid.)
The same is true here. The prosecutor relied upon defendant’s pretrial denial
that he had entered the victim’s house and killed the victim to attack his
credibility. The prosecutor referred to the fact that defendant asked for an attorney
only to show that the interview ended after defendant denied any involvement in
the victim’s death. (See also People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 332, fn. 4
[no Doyle error if “the evidence of defendant’s assertion of his right [to counsel
was not] offered to penalize defendant by illustrating consciousness of guilt, but
instead . . . to demonstrate a plan to destroy evidence”].)
19
In any event, this brief and mild reference to the fact that defendant asked for
an attorney did not prejudice defendant. (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004)
34 Cal.4th 1, 66; People v. Crandell, supra, 46 Cal.3d 833, 879.)
II. Reliability
of
Hair
Comparison Evidence
Defendant claims that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to
introduce evidence that a hair found on Lees’s left leg and another hair found on
her vulva were consistent with his pubic hair. He maintains that the rulings
violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law and that
the evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, § 352)
because the hair comparison evidence was “completely unreliable.”
Defendant did not object on due process grounds below; instead, he
interposed objections on the basis of Evidence Code section 352 and the
evidence’s scientific reliability under the Kelly-Frye test (People v. Kelly (1976)
17 Cal.3d 24; Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 [34 A.L.R. 145]).
(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 594-595 [describing the Kelly-Frye
test].) “Defendant argues on appeal primarily . . . that the trial court should have
excluded the evidence for the reason asserted at trial—that it was more prejudicial
than probative. He also argues that this asserted error violated his right to due
process. He may make that argument.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428,
431.) But on the merits, we conclude that no constitutional error occurred.6
As defendant concedes, this court has long approved of admitting forensic
hair comparison evidence. “Hair comparison evidence that identifies a suspect or
victim as a possible donor has been routinely admitted in California for many
years. . . .” (People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 239.) Defendant asserts that
6
Defendant does not renew his Kelly (see People v. Leahy, supra, 8 Cal.4th
587, 591) claim on appeal.
20
“developments in other jurisdictions call into question the introduction of hair
comparison evidence against a criminal defendant to prove his guilt,” citing at
length a Canadian provincial commission report (Kaufman, Ministry of Ontario
Atty. Gen., Rep. of the Kaufman Com. on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin
(1999) http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/ (as of
Apr. 10, 2006)), a federal district court decision (Williamson v. Reynolds
(E.D.Okla. 1995) 904 F.Supp. 1529), a book (Scheck et al., Actual Innocence
(2000)), and law review articles (Smith and Goodman, Forensic Hair Comparison
Analysis etc. (1996) 27 Colum. Hum. Rts. L.Rev. 227; Imwinkelried, Forensic
Hair Analysis etc. (1982) 39 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 41). This authority does not
convince us to retreat from our observation in Pride, supra, at page 239, that
“California courts have long assumed that hair comparison evidence of the sort
admitted here has some logical bearing on defendant’s commission of the charged
crimes. [Citations.]”
The criminalist acknowledged in her testimony that the hair comparison
evidence was of limited significance. The trial court did not err in admitting it.
Accordingly, there was no due process violation.
III.
Effect on Jury of Defendant’s Misconduct During the Trial
Defendant claims that the trial court violated his right to an impartial jury
under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and article
I, section 16 of the California Constitution by denying his motion to voir dire the
seated jurors to determine whether his misconduct had prejudiced them.
Defendant misbehaved on several occasions. He telephoned certain jurors
from jail. He struck Carolyn Roundey, one of his two defense counsel, knocking
her to the ground and causing jurors to react in alarm. After the assaultive
incident, defendant unsuccessfully moved to voir dire the jurors on whether each
could remain impartial.
21
Defendant’s claim must be rejected at the threshold in light of People v.
Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, in which, considering similar events, we upheld
the trial court’s refusal to permit voir dire to determine if the defendant’s
disruptive in-court conduct had prejudiced the jury. (Id. at pp. 1155-1157.) To be
sure, in Williams we commented that it might have been useful to voir dire the jury
regarding the defendant’s conduct, and ruled against him solely on the ground that
any error in failing to do so was harmless under the circumstances. (Id. at pp.
1156-1157.) But we also noted that “As a matter of policy, a defendant is not
permitted to profit from his own misconduct.” (Id. at p. 1156.) We adhere to that
view here. Defendant may not complain on appeal about the possible effect on
jurors of his own misbehavior after the jury has been sworn. (People v. Hendricks
(1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 643; see People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1054
[rejecting a claim of juror misconduct on the ground that if any occurred the
defendant invited it, and citing with approval the policy statement in Williams];
see also People v. Gomez (1953) 41 Cal.2d 150, 162 [during voir dire defendant
attempted to escape, causing a commotion; doctrine of invited error applied to
reject contention that the trial court should have discharged the jury panel].)
IV.
Court’s Refusal to Excuse Defendant From the Courtroom
In a claim related to claim III, ante, defendant asserts that the trial court
violated his rights to due process and to an impartial jury under the Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and article I, sections 7,
15, and 16 of the California Constitution when it refused to excuse him from the
proceedings at his request. He maintains that the court effectively compelled him
to physically disrupt the proceedings before it would excuse him from the
courtroom.
During voir dire, the trial court at times had permitted defendant to absent
himself on request, but it was unwilling to do so during the taking of evidence.
22
Read together, the version of section 9777 in effect at the time of the guilt phase
trial and section 1043 provide that capital defendants may not voluntarily absent
themselves during the taking of evidence at their trials unless they have disrupted
the trial and the court has reason to believe the disruptive behavior will continue.
As we explained in a decision that postdates defendant’s trial, “a capital defendant
may not voluntarily waive his right to be present during . . . those portions of the
trial in which evidence is taken, and . . . may not be removed from the courtroom
unless he has been disruptive or threatens to be disruptive.” (People v. Jackson
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1211.)
The record reflects that, during a phase of the trial at which evidence was
being presented, an afternoon court session began with defendant repeatedly
asking to be excused from the courtroom. The trial court told defendant to calm
down, but he began to utter expletives, which left the court unmoved. Defendant
asked, “So I’ve got to do something physical to get removed?” and, when the court
continued to tell him to calm down, struck Roundey. The court suspended the
proceedings and ordered defendant removed from the courtroom. The court
explained to the jurors: “A defendant cannot stop a trial. If the defendant acts up,
I have no choice but to remove him. Unfortunately, I cannot remove him until he
acts up, which is part of the problem. If a defendant can stop a trial, all he can do
is act up.”
7
At the time, section 977, subdivision (b), provided: “In all cases in which a
felony is charged, the accused must be present at the arraignment, at the time of
plea, during the preliminary hearing, during those portions of the trial when
evidence is taken before the trier of fact, and at the time of the imposition of
sentence. The accused shall be personally present at all other proceedings unless
he shall, with leave of court, execute in open court, a written waiver of his right to
be personally present . . . .” (Stats. 1968, ch. 1064, § 1, p. 2064.)
23
As stated in our discussion of claim III, ante, defendant cannot complain of
the effects of his in-court misbehavior. This forecloses his federal and state
constitutional claims. In any event, i.e., on the merits, we review a trial court’s
actions in controlling a disruptive defendant for an abuse of discretion. (See
People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 774.) None occurred. To be sure, the trial
court could have acted sooner to control defendant. Section 1043 permitted the
court to remove defendant when he became disruptive, and he had become
disruptive before he physically lashed out at his counsel.8 At defendant’s first oral
outburst, the court could have sent the jury out of the courtroom and dealt with
defendant’s demand outside the jury’s presence. Or, without excusing the jury, it
could have ruled that defendant was being disruptive and excused him, which,
with the benefit of hindsight, would have spared the jury from witnessing
defendant’s assault and the melee that followed among defendant, court personnel,
and law enforcement personnel. But the trial court was not required to remove
defendant immediately the first time he disrupted the proceedings.
V.
Court’s Agreeing to Excuse Defendant From the Courtroom
In an argument that he presents in the alternative to claim IV, ante, defendant
claims that the trial court violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
8
Section 1043 provides, as relevant here:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony
case shall be personally present at the trial.
“(b) The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has
commenced in his presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including,
the return of the verdict in any of the following cases:
“(1) Any case in which the defendant, after he has been warned by the
judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, nevertheless
insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and
disrespectful of the court that the trial cannot be carried on with him in the
courtroom.”
24
Amendments to the federal Constitution (specifically his rights to due process and
to confront the witnesses against him), and his rights under sections 977 and 1043
to be present during the trial, when it acceded to his wishes to be excused on
certain days.
There was no reversible error, and no violation of the Fifth or Sixth
Amendments.
First, defendant maintains that the trial court erred in not requiring him to
waive in writing his presence during voir dire or other proceedings for which
former section 977 did not compel his presence but required a written waiver if he
wanted to be absent. (Former § 977, subd. (b), as amended by Stats. 1968,
ch. 1064, § 1, pp. 2064-2065.) To the extent that these proceedings occurred
before the day on which he disrupted the trial, and to the extent that the court
required only oral waivers and did not attempt to obtain them in writing, it erred.
(People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 782.) The errors, however, were
harmless (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836), because the record makes
clear that defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present, if only orally.
(Garrison, supra, at pp. 782-783; People v. Ruiz (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 162, 169.)
Second, defendant complains that the trial court should not have honored his
requests to be excused from court sessions involving the taking of evidence at the
guilt phase after he assaulted his counsel. As stated, the version of section 977 in
effect at the time of the guilt phase trial and section 1043 provide that capital
defendants may not voluntarily absent themselves during the taking of evidence at
their trials unless they have disrupted the trial and the court has reason to believe
the disruptive behavior will continue. From all that appears in the record, the trial
court was entitled to conclude, following defendant’s assault on his counsel, that
defendant would continue to disrupt the proceedings if forced to attend them.
Under the circumstances, it did not abuse its discretion in not forcing defendant,
25
following his assault on counsel, to attend on those days that he did not wish to do
so. (See People v. Gutierrez (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1196, 1208.)9
Defendant further maintains that, no matter what statutory law may provide,
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution require the attendance
of capital defendants at trial, even if they do not wish to be present. Defendant
correctly notes that we have previously rejected this argument. (People v.
Jackson, supra, 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1210; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 405.)
We adhere to the view we expressed in Jackson and Price.
VI.
Adequacy of Record on Appeal
Defendant claims that the trial court’s failure to preserve a complete record
for appeal violated his rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
to the federal Constitution, along with California constitutional, statutory, and
court rules provisions. As regards his constitutional claims, he identifies
violations of his rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
and to the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, along
with rights guaranteed by article I, sections 7, 15, 17, and 24 of the California
Constitution. His other claims invoke section 190.9, subdivision (a), and, as
currently numbered, rule 34.1(a)(2) of the California Rules of Court.
If any part of the proceedings was not reported as required by section 190.9,
subdivision (a), “[e]rror it was; in the absence of prejudice, however, it is not
reversible.” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 509.) “ ‘A criminal
defendant is . . . entitled to a record on appeal that is adequate to permit
meaningful review. . . . The record on appeal is inadequate, however, only if the
9
On one occasion before the assault, defendant also demanded to leave the
courtroom and uttered an expletive. It is unclear from the record whether the trial
court granted this request, and we do not consider the matter further.
26
complained-of deficiency is prejudicial to the defendant’s ability to prosecute his
appeal. [Citation.] It is the defendant’s burden to show prejudice of this sort.’ ”
(People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 131, 149.)
Defendant has failed to do so here. He asserts that jury instruction
conferences were not reported and cannot be reconstructed, and also that “two
sealed reports have been lost, and no one can remember what they contained.”
Regarding the unreported conferences, “we are able to review the . . . instructions
themselves that were the subject of these conferences” (People v. Welch, supra, 20
Cal.4th 701, 774) and in this case, as the rest of our decision makes clear, that
suffices to permit defendant to prosecute his appeal (see also People v. Freeman,
supra, 8 Cal.4th 450, 510). As for the sealed reports whose content no one can
remember, nothing in defendant’s appeal permits us to conclude he has met his
burden of showing prejudice as a result of any loss of these items.
Accordingly, we find no prejudicial error under state law (People v. Watson,
supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836), nor any prejudicial federal constitutional error
(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24). Nevertheless, we continue to
“emphasize that trial courts should meticulously comply with Penal Code section
190.9, and place all proceedings on the record.” (People v. Freeman, supra, 8
Cal.4th 450, 511.)
VII. Prosecutor’s
Remarks
During Closing Argument
Defendant claims that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution, and article I, sections 7, 15,
and 17 of the California Constitution, were violated by improper remarks the
prosecutor made during closing argument. We disagree.
Defendant finds objectionable the following remarks, or categories of
remarks, by the prosecutor: (1) a statement in which the prosecutor asked the jury
to believe him that defendant was a liar; (2) comments to the effect that defense
27
counsel was aiding defendant in marketing a story to the jury that understated
defendant’s true culpability; (3) comments that overstated the value of the hair
comparison evidence; (4) comments on defendant’s invocation of his Miranda
rights (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436); and (5) appeals to religious
values in urging a guilty verdict.
Because defendant did not object to, or request that the jury be admonished
in light of, any of the foregoing remarks, the claim has been forfeited. As noted,
“ ‘[a]s a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial
misconduct unless in a timely fashion—and on the same ground—the defendant
made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to
disregard the impropriety.’ ” (People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 259.)
Defendant maintains that if we find his claim forfeited, then counsel’s failure
to ask the court to intervene amounted to a denial of his right to the effective
assistance of counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the federal Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth
Amendment entails deficient performance under an objective standard of
professional reasonableness and prejudice under a test of reasonable probability of
an adverse effect on the outcome. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668,
687-688, 694.) The Strickland standards also apply to defendant’s claim under
article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. (E.g., People v. Waidla (2000)
22 Cal.4th 690, 718.)
“Failure to object rarely constitutes constitutionally ineffective legal
representation . . . .” (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424.) Moreover,
“[i]f the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the
instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation
and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory
28
explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23
Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069.) These were not situations in which there could be no
satisfactory explanation for counsel’s failing to object to the remarks of which
defendant now complains. For example, counsel could have preferred not to draw
the jurors’ attention to particular comments by the prosecutor by objecting to them.
We cannot find on this record that counsel’s performance was deficient.
In any event, the claim is without merit. Except in one instance, it is clear
that the remarks were not objectionable. In the one instance in doubt, it is unlikely
that misconduct occurred, but if it did, it was de minimis. Thus, there was no
prejudice under the applicable ineffective assistance of counsel standard.
Under federal law, “ ‘Improper remarks by a prosecutor can “ ‘so infect[ ] the
trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due
process.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1204.) Under state law,
“ ‘a prosecutor who uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade either the
court or the jury has committed misconduct, even if such action does not render
the trial fundamentally unfair.’ ” (Ibid.)
The prosecutor argued, regarding the defense’s version of events, “None of
this can be true. Please believe me. He has lied through his teeth in trying to sell
this story to you.” Defendant asserts that by asking the jurors to believe him, the
prosecutor acted improperly.
There was no misconduct. The general rule is that improper vouching for the
strength of the prosecution’s case “ ‘involves an attempt to bolster a witness by
reference to facts outside the record.’ ” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153,
257, italics omitted.) Thus, it is misconduct for prosecutors to vouch for the
strength of their cases by invoking their personal prestige, reputation, or depth of
experience, or the prestige or reputation of their office, in support of it. (See, e.g.,
People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 288; Williams, supra, at p. 257; People v.
29
Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 756-758.) Specifically, a prosecutor’s reference to
his or her own experience, comparing a defendant’s case negatively to others the
prosecutor knows about or has tried, is improper. (Medina, supra, at p. 758.) Nor
may prosecutors offer their personal opinions when they are based solely on their
experience or on other facts outside the record. (See People v. Farnam (2002) 28
Cal.4th 107, 200; People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 975-976, 1018-1019.)
It is not, however, misconduct to ask the jury to believe the prosecution’s
version of events as drawn from the evidence. Closing argument in a criminal trial
is nothing more than a request, albeit usually lengthy and presented in narrative
form, to believe each party’s interpretation, proved or logically inferred from the
evidence, of the events that led to the trial. It is not misconduct for a party to
make explicit what is implicit in every closing argument, and that is essentially
what the prosecutor did here. Thus, counsel were not ineffective for failing to
object to the comment.
Defendant maintains that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, in violation
of his constitutional rights, when he questioned defense counsel’s integrity with
remarks such as: “Now, [defense counsel] has a tough job, and he tried to smoke
one past us,” and that counsel “will admit only what he has to admit and no more.
He will come in at the lowest price possible.”
This, too, was fair comment, and “[n]o misconduct occurred. This case does
not involve such forbidden prosecutorial tactics as falsely accusing counsel of
fabricating a defense or otherwise deceiving the jury. (People v. Bemore (2000) 22
Cal.4th 809, 846.) The prosecutor simply used colorful language to permissibly
criticize counsel’s tactical approach. (Ibid.; see People v. Marquez (1992) 1
Cal.4th 553, 575-576 [upholding reference to defense as ‘smokescreen’].) These
comments were explicitly aimed at counsel’s closing argument and statement,
30
rather than at him personally. We see no improper attack on counsel’s integrity.”
(People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 560.)
Defendant asserts that the following remark unduly bolstered the slight value
of the hair comparison evidence: “Now, why have we had no reference at all in
the defense argument to the pubic hairs that were found, preserved, compared and
identified?” It was proper to call the jury’s attention to omissions or other
deficiencies in defendant’s closing argument. “We accord the prosecutor wide
latitude in describing the factual deficiencies of the defense case.” (People v. Cash
(2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 733.)
As discussed ante (p. 18), defendant asserts that the prosecutor committed
Doyle error (Doyle v. Ohio, supra, 426 U.S. 610), improperly using against him his
invocation of his Miranda rights by arguing, “the defendant then terminated the
conversation by demanding a ‘PD [public defender],’ as he put it.” But as we
explained, there was no Doyle error, and therefore there was no prosecutorial
misconduct.
Defendant perceives misconduct in the prosecutor’s reference to religious
tenets, made through these remarks, which were the prosecutor’s final exhortation:
“You know, come judgment day this defendant will not have the opportunity to
meet Sarah Anne Lees again; but if he did, he’d have but two words to say[,] I’m
sorry, assuming he had any conscience. [¶] You folks do have a conscience. So I
urge you that whatever you do with this case, come judgment day you don’t find
yourself in the same position he would be in otherwise. Be true to Sarah. Be true
to . . . this defendant. Let the chips fall where they may and do the right thing.”
“ ‘ “[T]he primary vice in referring to the Bible and other religious authority
is that such argument may ‘diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its
verdict and . . . imply that another, higher law should be applied in capital cases,
displacing the law in the court’s instructions.’ ” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [¶] Even
31
if the prosecutor’s argument was error, such error was harmless. [Citation.] The
prosecutor’s biblical argument was only a small part of [his] argument, the bulk of
which focused on arguing to the jury why it should find that the statutory
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.” (People v. Samuels (2005)
36 Cal.4th 96, 134.) Moreover, “our statements clearly condemning prosecutorial
reliance on biblical authority in penalty phase closing argument were made in a
series of cases filed in late 1992 and 1993. [Citations.] The prosecutor’s . . .
closing argument predated these decisions.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th
264, 298, fn. 11.) Under the circumstances, we are loath to state definitively that
the prosecutor’s fleeting references to “judgment day” amounted to misconduct at
all. If it was, it certainly was harmless, whether viewed through the prism of
federal constitutional law (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24) or state
law (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836).
In sum, none of the remarks amounted to an instance of prosecutorial
misconduct, except, conceivably, the prosecutor’s brief mention of a biblical
precept. As stated, the lack of merit to defendant’s claims forecloses, on this
record, any notion that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
VIII.
Claim of Instructional Error Regarding Intent to Kill
Defendant contends we must set aside the jury’s findings that the special-
circumstance allegations are true because the trial court committed instructional
error when, in answer to the jury’s question about the significance of the intent
element, it gave the jury an erroneous definition of the mental state required for
intent to kill. We agree that instructional error occurred, but conclude that it did
not result in prejudice. Accordingly, there is no need to set aside the special-
circumstance findings.
32
A. The Intent to Kill Requirement
In 1983, we held that for a felony-murder special circumstance to be found
true, subjecting the killer to a death sentence or life imprisonment without
possibility of parole (§ 190.2), the prosecution had to prove that the killer intended
to kill the victim. (Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 153-154,
overruled by People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104.) Although we later
overruled Carlos v. Superior Court in People v. Anderson, trials for crimes
committed in the window period between Carlos and Anderson are controlled by
Carlos. (People v. Ramos, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1150; People v. Fierro (1991) 1
Cal.4th 173, 227.) “As to offenses committed after Carlos but before Anderson
. . . due process and ex post facto principles demand that the intent-to-kill
requirement apply to any felony-murder special circumstance charged in
connection with such offenses.” (People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 44; see In
re Baert (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 514, 519-522.) “Retroactive application of
Anderson in these circumstances would deprive defendant of a defense against
imposition of the death penalty which the law at the time of the crime plainly
permitted.” (Fierro, supra, at p. 227.)
There is no question that the trial court understood that the intent-to-kill
requirement applied in defendant’s case. It instructed the jury, for each felony-
murder special circumstance, that it must be proved “that the defendant, Michael
James Huggins, intended that a human being, to wit, Sarah Anne Lees, be killed.”
B. The
Trial
Court
Proceedings
On August 8, 1990, the jury, which was deliberating the case, requested that
the meaning of intent be clarified. It sent the trial court a note containing these
questions: “Is intent only in the act itself, or with the end result[?] ([Example]:
Knowing someone is shot but not tending to the person’s best interest
33
[if shot and let her die . . . is itself killing]10),” and “Is intent before, during, or
after the act[ ] of crime[?]”
The trial court responded: “[Y]ou can’t X-ray a person’s mind. So how do
you find out the intent with which an act is done? [¶] . . . [¶] . . . You can infer the
intent from the nature of the act. [¶] In other words, if you act in a certain way,
knowing that a result, death, is likely to follow, whether you want to kill or not,
you still have the intent to kill because if you act in a certain way, knowing that the
result, death, is likely to happen, whether you desire to kill or not doesn’t make
any difference. You still have the intent to kill.” The court directed the jurors to
apply this definition of intent to the three special-circumstance allegations: that
defendant committed the murder in the course of, or immediate flight from,
burglary, robbery, and rape or attempted rape (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i),
(iii), and (vii), now subd. (a)(17)(A), (C), and (G)).
The next morning, defense counsel filed a motion to clarify the trial court’s
response. He asserted that the court had, in effect, substituted elements of
implied-malice murder (see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300) for
intentional murder. The court refused to reinstruct the jury on the definition of
intent it had given. Thereafter the jury returned its verdicts, including verdicts that
all three alleged felony-murder special circumstances were true.
Defense counsel filed a motion for new trial, again arguing that the trial court
had instructed the jury according to elements of implied-malice murder and
removed the element of intent from the jurors’ consideration as they deliberated
the truth of the felony-murder special circumstances. The court responded, “Now,
if I said reckless indifference or something, I would agree with you; but I thought I
10
These bracketed words were written in a different handwriting from that of
the rest of the jury’s question and were not referred to by the trial court in
discussing the question.
34
was fairly careful. In other words, if you act a certain way, knowing as a result
that death is likely to follow, you . . . have the intent to kill . . . . Whether you
desire to kill or not doesn’t make any difference.” Counsel argued, “I think an
intent to kill is a desire to have the consequences of death come about.” The court
queried, “You have to intend the person being killed?” Counsel replied, “Yes.”
The court concluded the matter, declaring, “We don’t agree. The record’s clear.”
It denied the motion for a new trial.
C. The Court’s Definition Was Flawed, But There Was No Reversible
Error Under State Law or Due Process Violation
Defendant asserts that the definition of intent that the trial court provided in
its response to the jury’s question was faulty because it did not follow the
definition of intent to kill set forth in People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425,
434, judgment vacated and case remanded sub nomine California v. Velasquez
(1980) 448 U.S. 903, reiterated in its entirety People v. Velasquez (1980) 28 Cal.3d
461. We agree that the court’s response to the jury’s question was flawed, but find
no entitlement to relief.
Contrary to defendant’s focus on Carlos v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d
131, this case does not involve Carlos error. The trial court knew that Carlos
governed defendant’s case and accordingly instructed on intent to kill. (Cf. People
v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 42.) This disposes of part of defendant’s ex post
facto-based due process claim, which rests on a factual predicate that the court
instructed the jury in the manner it would have if Anderson, rather than Carlos,
were the governing law—a factual predicate that is contrary to the record. The
court’s response to the jury’s question misstated the definition of intent, but the
court did not instruct the jury in a manner similar to that in which it would have if
Anderson had been the law governing defendant’s case. The question before us is
narrower: did the court properly instruct on intent? Defendant recognizes that this
35
is the gravamen of the dispute in his reply brief, in which he comments that “[t]he
disagreement between [him] and respondent—much like that between defense
counsel and the trial court—revolves around the meaning of ‘intent to kill.’ ” That
is a correct statement of the posture of the case.
At the time of trial, intent to kill as required under Carlos v. Superior Court,
supra, 35 Cal.3d 131, was defined as follows: “ ‘For a result to be caused
“intentionally,” the actor must either desire the result or know, to a substantial
certainty, that the result will occur.’ ” (People v. Velasquez, supra, 26 Cal.3d 425,
434; People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal.3d 247, 262.) The trial court’s oral
instruction in the present case stated that the jury could find that defendant
intended to kill the victim if he “act[ed] in a certain way, knowing that the result,
death, is likely to happen.” Although the court erroneously used the term “likely”
instead of the term “substantial certainty,” reversal is not required, as explained
below.
The People rely on Velasquez and on People v. Lathus (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d
466, 470, for the proposition that the trial court’s instructions hewed sufficiently
close to the required standard for the judgment to be affirmed. We agree. There
was error, but no prejudice.
In addressing defendant’s claim, we apply the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-
doubt prejudice standard of Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24. “In
our view, . . . instructional errors—whether misdescriptions, omissions, or
presumptions—as a general matter fall within the broad category of trial errors
subject to Chapman review on direct appeal.” (People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th
470, 499; accord, id. at pp. 502-503; see People v. Haley, supra, 34 Cal.4th 283,
310; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689; People v. Osband (1996) 13
Cal.4th 622, 681 [applying Chapman prejudice standard to review of erroneous
instruction on special circumstance].) Accordingly, “we proceed to consider
36
whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to
this jury’s verdict.” (Flood, supra, at p. 504.)
It is clear that the trial court’s error in using the term “likely” rather than the
term “substantial certainty” did not contribute to the jury’s finding that defendant
intended to kill Lees. The prosecution contended that defendant shot the victim at
close range, intending to kill her. Defendant claimed that the gun discharged
accidentally. By accepting the prosecution’s version, the jury necessarily
concluded that defendant intended to kill the victim. The jury was not presented
with any version of the facts that required it to determine whether defendant
committed an act knowing that it was substantially certain to kill the victim, rather
than knowing that it was merely likely to kill her. We find beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
We would reach the same conclusion under the dissent’s theory of the
jury’s question, i.e., that the jury was asking if intent to kill could be found if it
concluded that defendant accidentally shot Lees but failed to render aid to her
afterward. The dissent theorizes, as we understand it, that the trial court failed to
recognize the meaning of the jury’s question, but gave an answer that misled the
jury into thinking that a failure-to-aid scenario could give rise to an intent to kill.
We can discern nothing that would suggest that the trial court’s erroneous use of
“likely” would be taken by reasonable jurors as an implicit endorsement of a
failure-to-aid theory. Moreover, even if the jury was misled, the question of
prejudice would still turn on the difference between likelihood and substantial
certainty. Would the jury have found that defendant thought Lees was not only
likely, but substantially certain, to die if he did not summon aid? We conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that this question must be answered in the affirmative.
The record discloses unambiguously that Lees was shot squarely in the center of
her back at point-blank range, i.e., from a distance of 6 to 18 inches. The shotgun
37
was bloodied, defendant left a trail of blood on the floor when he dragged Lees
back to her bedroom, and blood lay about her body. Given the location and the
obviously grievous nature of Lees’s wound, the jury would have had to conclude
that defendant knew Lees was substantially certain to die unless medical help
arrived promptly. In short, the court’s instruction, though erroneous, would not
have affected the jury verdict, even if the dissent is correct in characterizing the
gravamen of the jury’s question.11
Defendant urges that Velasquez’s definition of intent is too broad and that we
have impliedly rejected it in later cases. (People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th 622,
681; People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 423, fn. 2; see also People v. Harris
(1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 754, 758; but see People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733,
739; People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 219; People v. Davenport, supra,
41 Cal.3d 247, 262 [all adhering to the Velasquez definition]; People v. Albritton
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 647, 659; People v. Smith (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1470,
1485.) He appears to maintain that applying the Velasquez definition, when one
more favorable to him later came into being, violates ex post facto-based due
process principles.
“On its face the ex post facto clause [(U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1; Cal.
Const., art. I, § 9)] operates as a check only on the exercise of legislative power,
but similar limitations apply to judicial enlargement of a criminal act under
principles of due process.” (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391.) Invalid
ex post facto punishment occurs only when there are “changes in law that (1)
11
We note that neither the dissent nor defendant contend that the trial court’s
supposed lack of response to the jury’s question regarding whether failure to
render aid consitutes intent to kill was, by itself, error. Nor did the defendant
object at trial on this basis. We do not address this issue.
38
retroactively alter the definition of a crime or (2) retroactively increase the
punishment for criminal acts.” (In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 640.)
Nothing of the sort occurred here; therefore, there was no violation of defendant’s
due process rights.
We need not decide whether the Velasquez formulation still applies. The only
reason defendant was entitled to an intent instruction at all is because of ex post
facto principles. The intent requirement was later abolished, a change that could
not have improved defendant’s legal situation. Thus, what counts for ex post facto
purposes is the law defining intent at the time of the crime, not what change in that
definition may have occurred later, if any did. The Velasquez definition of intent
clearly applied at that time. (See People v. Davenport, supra, 41 Cal.3d 247, 262
[citing Velasquez on this point four months before the crime].) Defendant received
the most favorable treatment that the law had to offer at that time or, incidentally,
at any time since. He cannot have it both ways, which he attempts to do by
insisting on an intent charge to the jury (which he received, and which ex post
facto rules required) and a narrower definition of intent (which ex post facto
principles do not require). Defendant is not entitled now to the benefit of a
different definition of intent than that which existed when he murdered Lees, even
if the definition of intent was later narrowed, because now he would not be
entitled to an instruction on intent at all.12
IX.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery-related Findings
Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of
robbery and find true the related felony-murder special-circumstance allegation, in
12 Defendant
also
claims
that constitutional rights he discerns to jury trial,
fundamental fairness, and a reliable determination of guilt were violated, but he
presents no authority in support. We reject those claims, finding them to be
without merit.
39
violation of due process guaranties under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the federal Constitution.
There was sufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of robbery beyond a reasonable
doubt. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) The same standard applies
to review of the claim that there was insufficient evidence to find true the related
felony-murder special circumstance. (People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th 622,
690.)
There was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict defendant
and find true the special-circumstance allegation under the standard stated above.
“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another,
from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by
means of force or fear.” (§ 211.) To be convicted of robbery, the perpetrator must
intend to deprive the victim of the property permanently. (People v. Seaton, supra,
26 Cal.4th 598, 671; People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 645-646.) Robbery
requires the “intent to steal . . . either before or during the commission of the act of
force” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 34), because “[i]f [the] intent to
steal arose after the victim was assaulted, the robbery element of stealing by force
or fear is absent” (People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 443). Defendant
testified that he wrested the shotgun from Lees, meaning to steal it at the time the
struggle ensued, and had no intention of giving it back to her. (See post, pp. 43-
44.) The shotgun was later found in the pickup truck that defendant stole from
Lees. The prosecution’s evidence and defendant’s testimony clearly establish that
a robbery occurred. A rational trier of fact could conclude only that defendant
robbed Lees of her shotgun.
40
The only intent required to find the felony-murder-robbery special-
circumstance allegation true is the intent to commit the robbery before or during
the killing. (People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1079-1080; People v.
Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1263.) As explained, there was ample
evidence that defendant intended to rob Lees of her shotgun at the outset of the
struggle that occurred before he killed her with it. We reject defendant’s claim of
insufficient evidence to find true the felony-murder-robbery special circumstance.
X.
Failing to Instruct on Lesser Included Offense
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua
sponte on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery, which violated his rights to
due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal
Constitution, and to a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
thereof.
Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. (People v. Valdez (2004) 32
Cal.4th 73, 110.) A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury
determine every material issue presented by the evidence, and an erroneous failure
to instruct on a lesser included offense constitutes a denial of that right. To protect
this right and the broader interest of safeguarding the jury’s function of
ascertaining the truth, a trial court must instruct on an uncharged offense that is
less serious than, and included in, a charged greater offense, even in the absence of
a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether
all of the elements of the charged greater offense are present. (People v. Heard,
supra, 31 Cal.4th 946, 980-981; People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th 690, 733.)
But this does not mean that the trial court must instruct sua sponte on the
panoply of all possible lesser included offenses. Rather, to amplify on Heard,
“ ‘such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty
only of the lesser offense is “substantial enough to merit consideration” by the
41
jury. [Citations.] “Substantial evidence” in this context is “ ‘evidence from which
a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[ ]’ ” that the lesser
offense, but not the greater, was committed.’ ” (People v. Hughes, supra, 27
Cal.4th 287, 366-367, italics deleted.) The classic formulation of this rule is
expressed in People v. Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d 411, 443: “When there is
substantial evidence that an element of the charged offense is missing, but that the
accused is guilty of a lesser included offense, the court must instruct upon the
lesser included offense, and must allow the jury to return the lesser conviction,
even if not requested to do so.”
We are not faced with the foregoing situation here. Defendant focuses on the
asportation of Lees’s jewelry, asserting he formed the intent to take it from her
only after killing her. But this argument is beside the point, because whether the
stealing of the jewelry (or of any property other than the shotgun) constituted
robbery was never litigated. Although the formal robbery charge mentioned
jewelry and cash, the state never attempted to prove robbery of those items. The
prosecutor did not say in his opening statement that defendant robbed Lees of the
jewelry and cash. In closing argument, the prosecutor focused exclusively on the
shotgun when discussing robbery. He contended that defendant’s tale of
“snatching at the shotgun” from Lees before a struggle ensued over it constituted
an admission of robbery of the shotgun, but he never argued that the taking of the
jewelry and cash constituted robbery. When discussing the jewelry, the prosecutor
implied that defendant’s intent to steal it arose after Lees’s death. Nor did the
instructions to the jury describe the property allegedly robbed; the instructions
merely listed the elements of robbery. In sum, the state’s robbery case rested
solely on defendant’s stealing Lees’s shotgun.
“Robbery,” we reiterate, “is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will,
42
accomplished by means of force or fear.” (§ 211.) As noted, to be convicted of
robbery, the perpetrator must intend to deprive the victim of the property
permanently (People v. Seaton, supra, 26 Cal.4th 598, 671; People v. Wader,
supra, 5 Cal.4th 610, 645-646), and robbery requires the “intent to steal . . . either
before or during the commission of the act of force” (People v. Marshall, supra,
15 Cal.4th 1, 34), because “[i]f [the] intent to steal arose after the victim was
assaulted, the robbery element of stealing by force or fear is absent” (People v.
Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d 411, 443). As explained in our discussion of claim IX,
ante, even defendant’s evidence supports the conclusion that defendant robbed
Lees of her shotgun. Defendant testified that he took the shotgun from her as the
two struggled, and harbored, from the outset of the struggle, the intent to steal it.
The shotgun later was found in the pickup truck that defendant stole from the
victim. The evidence points to a sole conclusion: defendant robbed her of her
shotgun.
Defendant asserts that he decided to take the shotgun from Lees only after he
assaulted her. But there is no substantial evidence of this possibility. As noted,
“[i]f [the] intent to steal arose after the victim was assaulted, the robbery element
of stealing by force or fear is absent” (People v. Webster, supra, 54 Cal.3d 411,
443), and the offense is theft (ibid.). But we read the record differently from
defendant. As alluded to, defense counsel asked defendant, “[w]hen you first got
that gun away from her, you had no intention of giving it back to her, did you?”
Defendant answered, “[n]o, I didn’t.” The reasonable interpretation of defendant’s
admission, read against his description of his struggle with Lees and his eventual
carrying of the shotgun to Lees’s truck, is that he intended to take the shotgun
from the moment he saw Lees holding it and keep it for himself. As stated, the
prosecution’s theory of the case also pointed to defendant’s intent to steal the
shotgun before he attacked and murdered Lees, an assault carried out in part to
43
accomplish the stealing of the shotgun. There was no substantial evidence for the
view defendant now offers, i.e., evidence from which a jury composed of
reasonable persons could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was
committed. (People v. Heard, supra, 31 Cal.4th 946, 980-981; People v. Hughes,
supra, 27 Cal.4th 287, 366-367.) In sum, “[w]e reject the claim that the evidence
of after-formed intent rises to the level of substantial evidence justifying an
instruction on theft.” (People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 620.)
Accordingly, we find no error under state law or violation of any constitutional
guaranty.
XI.
Instructing on Rape and Attempted Rape
Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing on rape and attempted
rape, which violated his rights to due process of law under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution, and to a jury trial under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof.
The trial court originally instructed the jury that nonconsensual sexual
intercourse constitutes rape whether the victim is dead or alive. The next day, the
court reversed itself and instructed the jury that a completed rape is possible only
when the victim is alive, and that an attempted rape is possible only if the attempt
began when she was alive.
Defendant argues that constitutional error occurred because the trial court did
not directly “repudiate” its instruction that a dead victim can be raped, but
retreated from it in an equivocal manner, resulting in an ambiguous charge to the
jury.
We do not agree. As stated, “not every ambiguity, inconsistency, or
deficiency in a jury instruction rises to the level of a due process violation. The
question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the
resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “[A] single instruction to
44
a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context
of the overall charge.” ’ [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the
question is whether there is a ‘ “reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the
challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” (Middleton v.
McNeil, supra, 541 U.S. 433, 437.)
With regard to completed rape, it is well-established that the offense requires
a live victim. (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 660.) With regard to
attempted rape, “a person who attempts to rape a live victim, kills the victim in the
attempt, then has intercourse with the body, has committed only attempted rape,
not actual rape, but is guilty of felony murder . . . .” (People v. Kelly, supra, 1
Cal.4th 495, 525.)
The trial court effectively told the jury to disregard its earlier instruction that
a dead woman can be raped, and correctly stated the standard for determining the
truth of the felony-murder-rape special circumstance, stating, “[i]n . . . rereading
the transcript, when I spoke to you and answered some of your questions, it came
out a little garbled on one issue; and I want to just take a second and talk to you
about it. [¶] What I’m talking about is the special circumstance of murder during
the commission of a rape or [an] attempted rape. So let me do it again now. [¶]
As you know, the special circumstance alleges the murder occurred during a rape
or an attempted rape. Now, if the victim is dead before there is any sexual
penetration, no matter how slight, the special circumstance of murder during the
commission of rape cannot be true. In other words, there has to be sexual
penetration before the victim is dead for the special circumstance of murder during
. . . a rape to be true. [¶] But the special circumstance of murder during the
attempted commission of a rape can be true even if the victim is dead so long as
the attempt began before her death. [¶] . . . [¶] So, in other words, if the victim is
dead before there’s any sexual penetration, the special circumstance of murder
45
during the course of rape is not true; but the special circumstance of murder during
an attempted rape can be true even if the victim is dead so long as the attempt
began before her death.” These were accurate statements of the applicable law,
and there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied
the court’s corrective instruction. We reject defendant’s claim.
COMPETENCY INQUIRY BEFORE PENALTY PHASE
Defendant claims that the trial court violated his federal and state rights to
due process of law by failing to declare a doubt about his competency and to
conduct a full competency hearing before the second, and decisive, penalty phase
began. He argues that a formal competency hearing was required because a
substantial period of time had passed since the previous competency hearings and
because defense counsel had expressed concern that defendant’s mental health had
deteriorated.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The guilt phase trial began on March 26, 1990. In that year, after finding
defendant guilty, the jury deadlocked on penalty and the court declared a mistrial.
At the beginning of the second penalty phase, which began on July 22, 1993, the
trial court conducted an informal inquiry into defendant’s competency to proceed
to trial before a new jury. Counsel for defendant stated that he had concerns about
defendant’s competency. He noted that he, the prosecutor, and the trial judge were
all new to the case, and asserted that even though in 1987 and 1990 defendant’s
competency had been reviewed and no grounds for incompetency found, his
mental condition might have deteriorated since then.
The trial court said that to prepare for the inquiry it had read the record of
defendant’s 1987 competency trial, the experts’ reports prepared for that trial, and
a three-page evaluation of defendant done by Dr. Boer in 1990. The court also
46
read all of defendant’s guilt phase testimony. On the basis of that review, the trial
court commented, “I can hopefully make an intelligent decision about whether
there has been a substantial change in circumstances or new evidence [to be]
presented today . . . .”
On the first day of the informal competency inquiry, George Woods, M.D., a
psychiatrist, testified that defendant suffered from various mental health problems,
including paranoia and either a schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder, which
two disorders would produce the same symptoms. He concluded that defendant
could not rationally assist counsel to prepare a defense and was incompetent to
stand trial. But he conceded that defendant’s “psychotic state” had not changed in
many years.
Following the parties’ examinations, the trial court examined Dr. Woods and
asked him whether defendant’s lengthy testimony at the guilt phase trial showed
that he did not have mental difficulties amounting to incompetency. Dr. Woods
initially expressed some doubt about the rationality of some of defendant’s
testimony at the guilt phase, but ultimately conceded that, particularly with regard
to the evidence that he raped or attempted to rape Lees, it served a potentially
exculpatory purpose even if some of his statements did not appear to be rational.
Dr. Woods agreed, moreover, that defendant appeared to have no cognitive
difficulties, no failures of memory, and no difficulties in explaining his conduct,
and that he appeared to understand that he was on trial and the nature of a trial.
The trial court ruled that it would apply a substantial-change-in-
circumstances test to determine whether it should declare a doubt about
defendant’s competency. Doing so, it concluded that portions of Dr. Woods’s
testimony established that there had been no substantial change in defendant’s
mental condition from 1990, and that Dr. Woods had conceded that in 1990
defendant satisfied the minimum statutory competency requirements. It concluded
47
that there was only a weak basis for Dr. Woods’s general opinions about
defendant’s current mental condition, given that, among other deficiencies in Dr.
Woods’s preparation, he had not reviewed critical testimony from defendant’s
1987 competency trial. The court also found that the quality of defendant’s
testimony at the guilt phase produced “powerfully persuasive” evidence of his
competency in 1990. Defendant had seriously contested the extent of his criminal
culpability, in particular by putting in controversy through his testimony the
question whether the special circumstances were true. For the foregoing reasons,
the court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
“ ‘ “When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has
been found competent to stand trial . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings
to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial
change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the
validity of that finding.” ’ ” (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 136.)
We apply a deferential standard of review to a trial court’s ruling concerning
whether another competency hearing must be held. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26
Cal.4th 876, 954.) We review such a determination for substantial evidence in
support of it.
Although the fact of the prior competency determination did not by itself
establish defendant’s competency before the second penalty phase (see People v.
Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th 694, 728), a second competency hearing was required
only on a showing of a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence
casting a serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding (People v. Lawley,
supra, 27 Cal.4th 102, 136). The prior finding was based on a thorough inquiry
into defendant’s competency, and the evaluations made at that time and the verdict
of competency must be viewed as a baseline that, absent a preliminary showing of
48
substantially changed circumstances, eliminated the need to start the process anew.
As the prosecutor argued to the trial court following the testimony at the informal
inquiry, the question has “been resolved by a jury trial. [The defense expert]
merely disagrees with that result.” Defendant failed to show a substantial change
of circumstances. Therefore we sustain the trial court’s ruling, and conclude that
defendant’s due process claims lack merit. (People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th
119, 139, 150-151 (plur. opn.), overruled on another point in People v. Hill (1998)
17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1.)
PENALTY PHASE
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. Prosecution
Case
A. Defendant’s Prior Street Crimes
At the second and decisive penalty phase trial, Doris Dantes testified that she
awoke about 2:00 a.m. one morning in 1981 to find defendant standing on a
stepladder and shining a flashlight through her first floor apartment window in San
Francisco. The two of them were looking at each other through the window,
separated by only a couple of feet. Paralyzed by fear, shock, or both, she was
unable to scream; instead, she told him to go away. After unsuccessfully trying to
reach a telephone to call police, she fled. As she ran for the front door, defendant
hurled a brick through the window, almost striking her, and she was injured by
flying shards of glass. Only then did she begin to scream, and she left the
apartment and sought help from a neighbor. When she returned later, she found
someone else’s blood on the window frame and saw that her purse, which had
been lying on a couch near the window, was missing. The police escorted her to
an area some blocks away where defendant, who had been chased by Dantes’s
neighbors, had been apprehended in possession of her purse. She identified
49
defendant and her stolen purse. All of her money had been taken from the purse,
and credit cards may have been taken as well.
One of the pursuers also testified. In trying to escape, defendant threw his
flashlight at the pursuer. Defendant also threatened to take revenge on him as he
was holding defendant on the ground and awaiting the police.
Semadar Barzel testified that on an evening in 1984, in San Francisco, she
was at her doorstep when an African-American man pointed an object at her (she
thought it might have been a toy gun or a knife), grabbed her purse, and ran away.
Defendant was arrested the next night and the registration slip to Barzel’s
automobile, which had been in her purse, was found on him, along with a .25-
caliber gun.
A year later, in 1985, defendant committed two violent purse-snatchings in
one evening. He resisted arrest and had to be physically subdued. One victim,
Regena Mannello, suffered facial injuries, had to be treated by emergency medical
personnel, later required reconstructive surgery, and was left permanently injured.
The other, Linda Incardine, was also assaulted. Defendant hit her four times to
force her to relinquish her purse, causing substantial injuries and emotional
trauma.
B. Defendant’s
Conduct in Custody
Sheriff’s deputies testified that on July 24, 1987, they discovered defendant
had used a contraband razor blade to cut off his identification tag, and that he had
hidden the blade in some paperwork. The blade had been broken away from its
retaining device. One of the two deputies further testified that on February 5,
1988, he found a contraband razor blade carefully hidden in the wrapper of what
appeared to be an unopened bar of defendant’s soap. Another sheriff’s deputy
testified that on March 25, 1988, he found a contraband razor blade hidden in a
container of defendant’s baby powder.
50
A deputy sheriff testified that during the guilt phase of the trial, defendant
struck one of his counsel, Carolyn Roundey, who was less than five feet tall and
weighed about 90 pounds. (See ante, pp. 21, 23.) Afterward, defendant tried to
flee the courtroom, but the deputy restrained him. Roundey suffered a swollen
face.
A correctional officer at the Corcoran State Prison testified that in 1992
defendant was involved in a fight there with another inmate.
C. Defendant’s Prior Convictions
The prosecution also introduced abstracts of judgment showing that
defendant had been convicted of two robberies (§ 211) and assault by means of
force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). (§ 190.3, factor (c).)
These convictions arose from the Mannello and Incardine incidents. The
convictions all occurred in 1985.
D. Victim-Impact Evidence
The jury heard testimony about the impact of Lees’s death on her family and
the community. She was described as compassionate, loyal, and extroverted.
Learning of her death and dealing with the aftermath was extremely traumatic for
her survivors. Life in her absence had become difficult for her family, coworkers
and friends in a number of respects. The community mourned her death by
placing a bronze statue of her at the Pleasanton public library.
E. Defendant’s Extrajudicial Statement Showing Lack of Remorse
Two deputy sheriffs testified that defendant told them he had no remorse for
killing Lees. One quoted defendant as saying, “ ‘Don’t nobody like me anyway.
If I had it to do again I would do it the same way. I don’t have any remorse. If I
did have remorse I wouldn’t have done it in the first place.’ ”
51
II. Defense
Case
A. Defendant’s
Testimony
In testimony similar to that which he gave at the guilt phase before a different
jury, defendant described the circumstances of his escape from the California
Youth Authority work detail and his wanderings in the rural area that would
eventually lead him to break into Lees’s house. Unlike at the guilt phase,
however, defendant ended his testimony after testifying that he heard Lees’s dog
barking. The court day ended at that point, and the next day defendant refused to
continue to testify, either on direct or cross-examination. He did not testify about
the death of Lees. The trial court later instructed the jury that “the defendant’s
refusal to continue his testimony on direct examination, and his refusal to submit
to cross-examination, may be considered by you in evaluating his credibility as a
witness.”
Before ending his testimony, defendant also testified in response to the
evidence in aggravation other than the circumstances of the crimes against Lees.
He admitted stealing Doris Dantes’s purse and also admitted that he used a brick to
break the window to her apartment, but he denied hurling the brick. He minimized
his role in stealing from Semadar Barzel without precisely denying that he had
committed any crimes against her. He admitted striking Linda Incardine and
taking her purse, but denied any interaction with Regena Mannello. He admitted
striking Carolyn Roundey in court (see ante, pp. 21, 23, 51); he testified that “we
was having all kind of misunderstandings.” Roundey also looked too much like
the murder victim, a resemblance that he felt served to the detriment of his case.
And she persisted in “saying stuff that didn’t make no sense.” Defendant also
admitted to having fought with another inmate at the Corcoran State Prison.
Defendant testified that he had innocent reasons for possessing the concealed
razor blades. He needed them to cut paper or trim his hair. The jail would cut his
52
hair only once a month, which was too seldom. He acknowledged that he used a
razor blade once to sever his wristband, explaining simply, “I don’t wear them.”
Defendant denied that he ever made any remarks to sheriff’s deputies
showing a lack of remorse.
B. Other
Testimony
Defendant introduced evidence to try to cast the circumstances of the crime
in a light more favorable to him. An expert in the mechanics of human movement
testified that defendant could, if startled by Lees exiting the bedroom
unexpectedly, have fired the shotgun accidentally.
Defendant also presented evidence of his difficult childhood in Gloster,
Mississippi, through the testimony of various relatives. His mother, an alcoholic
of low intelligence who suffered from mental illness and had difficulty with basic
tasks like cooking and washing, would neglect him, and he regularly lacked
adequate clothing and nutrition. At an early age, however, defendant was moved
to San Francisco to be cared for by his extended family. Despite their love for and
devotion to him, he was hard to control and fared poorly, skipping school, running
away from home, and requiring evaluation by a psychologist, with whom he often
would not cooperate. When he was around age 10, his mother, still in Mississippi,
retrieved him so she could increase her welfare allotment. He was a “problem
child” in Gloster as he had been in San Francisco, rebellious, mistrustful, known to
the authorities, and prone to committing thefts and burglaries. Eventually he was
placed in foster care. After his mother died in 1973, he became involved in
gambling and illegal alcohol sales. His grandfather brought him back to San
Francisco when he was 14 or 15 years old.
Gloster, even at the time of defendant’s penalty trial, was racially divided by
railroad tracks that ran through town; the Ku Klux Klan was active in the area; and
life in that part of Mississippi was marked by extreme poverty for members of
53
defendant’s family. Yet his brother emerged from the family and social
environment in Mississippi unscathed and testified in effect that defendant brought
many of his problems, including in his relationship with their mother, on himself
through his quarrelsome nature. As one of defendant’s relatives admitted, even
when defendant was young “he had a bad mind.”
Defendant also presented a mental health mitigation case. Dale G. Watson,
Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist and a neuropsychologist, testified that
defendant was mentally ill, had moderate brain dysfunction, and had a cognitive
ability that bordered on mental retardation, with an intelligence quotient in the
70’s or 80’s. Defendant also was suffering from a personality disorder with manic,
paranoid, and antisocial features. A Rorschach test suggested that his thinking
processes were psychotic or nearly so. Clinical observations also suggested
psychotic thinking: defendant refused to stick out his tongue, describing it as a
“silly” request and, after an hour and a half of prodding about his reasons for
refusing, explained that he thought complying would result in a rectal
examination, which he did not want to have done. This fear amounted to
unpredictable and “bizarre” thinking.
Dr. Woods, the psychiatrist who had evaluated defendant for competency
purposes (ante, p. 47), testified before the penalty phase jury about defendant’s
mental condition. His testimony was similar to Dr. Watson’s: defendant was
suffering from psychosis, delusional thinking, and an extreme form of paranoia.
He did not believe that defendant was malingering, at least with him.
III.
Prosecution’s Rebuttal Case
Dr. Boer, the psychologist who had testified earlier about defendant’s
competency (ante, p. 5), also testified before the penalty phase jury about
defendant’s mental condition. Much as he did before the competency jury, Dr.
Boer testified that defendant was an obvious malingerer. He characterized him as
54
a dangerous, manipulative, and antisocial psychopath who could not be treated.
On cross-examination, Dr. Boer agreed that defendant is “not very intelligent.” He
did not believe defendant to be psychotic. As a rule, a malingerer cannot be
psychotic, because people who are psychotic are incapable of malingering and, in
any event, feel no need to engage in deceptive conduct of that type.
Dr. Beaulieu, the psychiatrist who had testified earlier about defendant’s
competency (ante, pp. 4-5), was deceased at the time of the second penalty phase.
Dr. Boer testified that Dr. Beaulieu believed defendant to be a malingerer with an
antisocial personality disorder. Dr. Boer also testified that California Youth
Authority records failed to show any psychiatric problems in defendant during his
confinement in its facilities.
DISCUSSION
I.
Defendant’s Absence from Proceedings
Defendant claims that the trial court violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution (specifically his rights to
due process and to confront the witnesses against him), and his rights under
sections 977 and 1043 of the Penal Code to be present during the trial, when it
permitted him to absent himself from court sessions during the penalty phase, and
that a written waiver he executed on each such occasion did not adequately alert
him to his right to be present. We disagree.
The record shows that defendant sometimes preferred not to be present
during the taking of evidence or other proceedings at the second penalty phase.
The first time he completed the waiver-of-presence form and asked to be excused,
the trial court reminded him that it had explained to him in detail seven days
earlier, during the pre-penalty-phase competency inquiry, his right to be present
and the potential cost of surrendering that right. The court again engaged in
thorough questioning of defendant to ensure that he understood he was
55
surrendering an “important right.” It excused him for the rest of the day but
cautioned him that because the right is so important, it might not honor any future
requests to be absent. In sum, the record shows that the court made an exhaustive
effort to protect defendant’s right to be present and ensure that his waiver of it was
knowing and intelligent. And each time defendant asked to be excused thereafter,
the court undertook the same procedure and regularly cautioned the jury not to
consider his absence. The court was careful to make sure that defendant was
waiving his right to presence in an informed manner. Defendant further argues
that he should not have been permitted to waive his presence during the taking of
evidence. But even if the court did so and thereby permitted defendant to waive
his right to be present in violation of sections 977 and 1043, it simply means, as
respondent observes, that defendant was “not deprived of a right, but . . . rather
failed to fulfill a statutory obligation. . . . [The Legislature] hardly could have
intended that a capital defendant be allowed to stall the proceedings, or have them
invalidated, unless he chose to attend them.” We agree with respondent’s
observation.
II.
Batson-Wheeler Claim
As we have observed, a different jury from the one that tried the guilt phase
heard the second penalty phase trial. Defendant claims that the prosecution, in
participating in the selection of the second penalty phase jury, exercised
peremptory challenges against African-American prospective jurors in violation of
Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d
258.
Federal law following Batson holds that exercising peremptory challenges
solely on the basis of race offends the Fourteenth Amendment’s guaranty of the
equal protection of the laws (Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct.
2317, 2324]; U.S. v. Martinez-Salazar (2000) 528 U.S. 304, 315), and Wheeler
56
holds that such conduct violates defendants’ right to trial by a jury drawn from a
representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the
state Constitution (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277).
Procedurally, the “three Batson steps should by now be familiar. First, the
defendant must make out a prima facie case ‘by showing that the totality of the
relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ [Citations.]
Second, once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the ‘burden shifts to
the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion’ by offering permissible race-
neutral justifications for the strikes. [Citations.] Third, ‘[i]f a race-neutral
explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide . . . whether the opponent
of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.’ ” (Johnson v. California
(2005) 545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416].) Excluding even a single
prospective juror for reasons impermissible under Batson and Wheeler requires
reversal. (People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 386.) And although a party may
exercise a peremptory challenge for any permissible reason or no reason at all
(Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 768; People v. Jones (1997) 17 Cal.4th 279,
294), “implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to
be pretexts for purposeful discrimination” (Purkett, supra, at p. 768).
In evaluating a trial court’s Batson-Wheeler ruling that a party has offered a
race-neutral basis for subjecting particular prospective jurors to peremptory
challenge, we are mindful that “ ‘[i]f the trial court makes a “sincere and reasoned
effort” to evaluate the nondiscriminatory justifications offered, its conclusions are
entitled to deference on appeal.’ ” (People v. Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1302,
1319-1320, overruled on another point as explained post, p. 58, fn. 13; accord,
People v. Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th 345, 385-386.) In a case in which deference is
due, “[t]he trial court’s ruling on this issue is reviewed for substantial evidence.”
(People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 971.) The trial court here made a
57
sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the prosecution’s explanations for its
excusal of the prospective jurors and, as we now explain, its ruling that the
explanations were satisfactory is supported by substantial evidence. We find no
basis for reversal.
The parties and the trial court conferred in chambers to discuss defense and
prosecution Batson-Wheeler motions. Of course, only defendant’s motion is at
issue here.
Defendant objected that the prosecution had excluded eight African-
American prospective jurors in the course of exercising 15 peremptory challenges.
After struggling, along with the parties, over the question whether one of the
seated jurors, a Puerto Rican woman, was more properly categorized as Hispanic
or African-American, the trial court returned to defendant’s motion. Before the
court ruled on whether defendant had made out a prima facie case of
impermissible discrimination, the prosecutor said, “none of my reasons for
excusing any of the [prospective] jurors related to race. [They] [r]elated to what I
perceived their attitudes are and their ability to be able to impose the death
penalty.”
The trial court found a prima facie case of impermissible discrimination, and
asked the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges.13
13 “In
Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ [125 S.Ct. 2410, 2419] . . . ,
the United States Supreme Court recently reversed our decision in People v.
Johnson (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1302, and held that ‘California’s “more likely than not”
standard is at odds with the prima facie inquiry mandated by Batson.’ Because . . .
defendant made a prima facie showing, Johnson does not affect our holding here.”
(People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 201, fn. 2.)
Respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding a prima facie case of
discrimination and urges this court to dispose of defendant’s claim by setting aside
the trial court’s ruling. On this record, however, we are not persuaded that the
ruling should be set aside. A finding that a defendant established a prima facie
case of improper discrimination is reviewed for substantial evidence. (People v.
(footnote continued on next page)
58
With regard to the first prospective juror, Mark T., the prosecutor observed
that (1) he equivocated about his ability to impose the death penalty; (2) he had
witnessed the effects of drug abuse and might be a “wild card on that issue,” if the
defense presented any drug-related mitigating evidence, as the prosecutor believed
it did in the first penalty trial; (3) his mother was a psychiatric social worker and
his sister a psychologist; (4) he went to several colleges but graduated from none
of them, which “[j]ust kind of gives me the impression that he doesn’t follow
through with things”; (5) “he also had law-related classes with the law school
format. I don’t want [him] playing lawyer on the jury”; (6) he expressed surprise
that the electorate voted not to retain former Chief Justice Rose Bird on this court
in 1986, and “I don’t want anybody [with that view of the 1986 election] on my
jury in a death penalty case”; (7) another employee in the Alameda County District
Attorney’s Office knew Mark T. and told the prosecutor he did not think he would
be able to vote for death; and (8) the defense asked no questions of him, and “I
have a real problem with that, because it’s obvious to me that they like him.”
With regard to the second prospective juror, Gloria W., the prosecutor
observed that (1) she was late to court one day; (2) she had a son the same age as
defendant at the time of the crimes; (3) she did not “mix with the other
[prospective] jurors” and came across as unfriendly both to them and to him; (4)
she equivocated in numerous respects about the death penalty and, ultimately, the
prosecutor doubted she could impose it; (5) her youngest brother had died of a
(footnote continued from previous page)
Silva, supra, 25 Cal.4th 345, 384.) We cannot say that the trial court’s ruling was
unsupported by substantial evidence. At the point the court ruled, the prosecutor
had exercised peremptory challenges against eight African-American prospective
jurors, and that, in our view, constitutes substantial evidence in the circumstances
of this case. (See Miller-El v. Dretke, supra, 545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2317,
2340].)
59
drug overdose and the prosecutor was unsure how she might react to any
mitigating evidence of drug usage by defendant; (6) she might have religious
scruples regarding capital punishment; (7) “[s]he’s training for foster care to take
care of 12-year-old boys. And I know in the last [penalty] trial the defense relied
heavily on the defendant’s problems back in Mississippi . . . [in] foster situations”;
and (8) the defense asked no questions of her.
With regard to the third prospective juror, Ray F., the prosecutor observed
that (1) he was born in Berkeley and might share anti-death-penalty views the
prosecutor believed to be prevalent there; (2) court security reported that Ray F.
had jousted verbally with them; (3) “he was totally against the death penalty as a
student”; (4) he might have excessive religious scruples regarding capital
punishment; (5) he opposed the electorate’s decision not to retain former Chief
Justice Rose Bird on this court in 1986; (6) he would find psychological or
psychiatric testimony helpful, and “I would prefer people that don’t particularly
like it if I could find them”; and (7) he had equivocated over the years about the
death penalty and, ultimately, the prosecutor doubted he could impose it.
With regard to the fourth prospective juror, Charles S., the prosecutor
observed that (1) potential affinities existed between him and defendant because
the prospective juror’s father was a minister in Mississippi, as the prosecutor
believed a grandfather of defendant to be; (2) his children had drug-abuse
problems; (3) he was not friendly to the prosecutor and the prosecutor did not
believe he would get along with other jurors; (4) his son was a career criminal; (5)
he had minimized the extent of his own criminal activity, describing an arrest for
disturbing the peace when instead he was arrested on a felony charge of trying to
draw a firearm on an Oakland police officer (the prosecutor regretted not knowing
that information earlier or he would have challenged Charles S. for cause); (6) he
equivocated in numerous respects about the death penalty and, ultimately, the
60
prosecutor believed he would never impose it; and (7) the defense asked no
questions of him.
With regard to the fifth prospective juror, M.S., the prosecutor observed that
(1) he dressed “pretty grubbily” in court and thereby showed “no respect for the
entire process”; (2) potential affinities existed between him and defendant because
they were both from Mississippi and the prospective juror’s father was a farmer in
that state, as the prosecutor believed a grandfather of defendant to be; (3) he
equivocated in numerous respects about the death penalty and, ultimately, the
prosecutor believed he would never impose it; (4) he was not friendly to the
prosecutor and the prosecutor did not believe he would get along with other jurors;
(5) he inaccurately answered a question concerning whether one of his two sons
had been a crime victim; (6) a sister’s boyfriend had been charged with murder in
Arkansas; (7) he might think that mental illness could warrant a sentence less than
death; (8) he believed death penalty appeals take too long; (9) he might have
religious scruples regarding capital punishment; and (10) the prosecutor had
driven by his house and saw a wrecked automobile in the driveway, which
suggested a certain disorderliness in the prospective juror’s life. Moreover, the
prosecutor believed that the known attitudes of the remaining prospective jurors
made the excusal of M.S. advantageous.
With regard to the sixth prospective juror, George M., the prosecutor
observed that (1) he continually wore sunglasses in court and thereby showed “no
respect to the system”; (2) he flirted with female prospective jurors and “I don’t
want . . . a Don Juan on the jury”; (3) he equivocated in numerous respects about
the death penalty and, ultimately, the prosecutor believed he would never impose
it; (4) he was not friendly to the prosecutor and the prosecutor did not believe he
would get along with other male jurors; (5) he did not graduate from high school;
and (6) his back problems made him unable to sit or stand for extended periods.
61
Moreover, the prosecutor believed that the known attitudes of the remaining
prospective jurors made the excusal of George M. advantageous.
With regard to the seventh prospective juror, V.R., the prosecutor observed
that (1) potential affinities existed between her and defendant because they both
had children born out of wedlock; (2) she equivocated in numerous respects about
the death penalty and, ultimately, the prosecutor believed she would never impose
it; (3) she was aloof to other prospective jurors; (4) she inaccurately answered a
question concerning whether she had been a crime victim; (5) she might have
religious scruples regarding capital punishment; (6) the prosecutor had noticed that
her automobile was in a sufficiently dilapidated condition to suggest a certain
disorderliness in her life; (7) the prosecutor had watched the prospective juror
interact with coworkers at Home Depot and observed that she did not appear to get
along with them; and (8) the defense seemed too comfortable with her. “I don’t
think I could take a chance on her.” Moreover, “the one that replaced her[,] who
was next on the list when I excused her[,] was another black female . . . who I
thought was a much stronger juror and much better for the prosecution. And she
is, in fact, on the jury and she’s a black woman also.”
With regard to the eighth prospective juror, Ethel F., the prosecutor observed
that (1) she was elderly and might regard life as too precious; (2) she was not
friendly toward him and appeared to be aloof toward the other prospective jurors,
but kept smiling at defendant; (3) her career in nursing might make her too
compassionate; (4) she might have religious scruples against imposing the death
penalty; (5) she might have to leave the jury in midtrial to help an ailing son; (6)
she equivocated about the death penalty and, ultimately, the prosecutor believed
she would never impose it; and (7) the defense seemed too comfortable with her.
Moreover, the prosecutor believed that the known attitudes of the remaining
prospective jurors made the excusal of Ethel F. advantageous.
62
The trial court denied defendant’s Batson-Wheeler motion. It found the
prosecutor’s reasons to be genuine and candid and not pretextual, and recited in
detail its reasons for so finding. It explained at length that many of the
prosecutor’s observations of the prospective jurors’ demeanors and attitudes
matched its own. And it commented that “I do not find that [the prosecutor’s] voir
dire of the Black [prospective] jurors as opposed to other [prospective] jurors was
perfunctory, unsavory, shallow or desultory. [¶] I find it was thorough and
lengthy. And his voir dire of Black [prospective] jurors was virtually the same as
was his voir dire of other [prospective] jurors.”
Given the trial court’s well-reasoned and sincere effort to evaluate the
nondiscriminatory justifications the prosecutor offered, its conclusions are entitled
to deference on appeal. (People v. Johnson, supra, 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1319-1320,
overruled on another point as discussed ante, p. 58, fn. 13.) Substantial evidence,
set forth in detail below in our discussion of defendant’s Miller-El claim (Miller-El
v. Dretke, supra, 545 U.S. __ [125 S.Ct. 2317]), supports the trial court’s ruling
with regard to each prospective juror. Apart from an inconsequential misstatement
of the content of Mark T.’s juror questionnaire, which we ascribe to an innocent
misrecollection, we have found nothing in the record contradicting the
prosecutor’s explanations for his peremptory challenges.14 To the extent that the
14
Of Mark T., the prosecutor said, “One of the other things that bothered me
about his questionnaire is that while he went to several colleges he never did
graduate. Just kind of gives me the impression that he doesn’t follow through with
things.” In fact, Mark T.’s juror questionnaire shows that he attended only the
University of California, Davis, did not graduate from it, and had a number of
“major[s] or area[s] of special interest.”
We also note that whereas the prosecutor stated the defense asked Charles
S. no questions, defense counsel did ask him one: whether he had ever been an
announcer. Charles S. replied no, and counsel said, “You’ve got a great voice.”
But this was not so much questioning as extending a compliment. We do not find
the prosecutor’s comment to be inaccurate.
63
record touches on the genuineness of the prosecutor’s stated race-neutral reasons
for challenging the prospective jurors, it confirms them.15
Our discussion requires a further inquiry, but undertaking it does not alter our
conclusion. In Miller-El v. Dretke, supra, 545 U.S. __ [125 S.Ct. 2317], the
United States Supreme Court held that the defendant had established purposeful
discrimination under Batson. (Id. at pp. __, __ [125 S.Ct. at pp. 2322, 2341].)
Prefatorily, we note that Miller-El v. Dretke, supra, 545 U.S. __ [125 S.Ct.
2317] (Miller-El), is an extreme case, in which the evidence of the Dallas County,
Texas, District Attorney’s Office’s practice of improperly challenging African-
American prospective jurors on the basis simply of race was overwhelming. The
Supreme Court referred to the state’s “incredible explanations” (id. at p. __ [125
S.Ct. at p. 2339]), “trickery” (id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2337]), and “ruse[s]” (id.
at pp. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2337], fn. 24, __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2338], fns. 25, 26). In
sum, “the state court’s [contrary] conclusion was unreasonable as well as
erroneous” (id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2340]) under the very high standard
imposed on federal courts reviewing state court death judgments.16
15
Thus it does not matter whether it was reasonable for the prosecutor to
doubt the desirability of prospective jurors who were born in Berkeley or were
associated with automobiles in less than pristine condition. Absent evidence that
being born in Berkeley or linked to dilapidated automobiles is so closely
associated with a protected group that they are surrogates for membership in the
group and thus arguably impermissible (see Hernandez v. New York (1991) 500
U.S. 352, 371 (plur. opn.) [dictum]), the reasons are neutral for Batson-Wheeler
purposes, and that is all that matters.
16
“Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Miller-
El may obtain relief only by showing the Texas conclusion to be ‘an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Thus we presume the Texas court’s factual
findings to be sound unless Miller-El rebuts the ‘presumption of correctness by
clear and convincing evidence.’ § 2254(e)(1). The standard is demanding . . . .”
(Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2317, 2325].)
64
In Miller-El the Court performed a comparative prospective juror analysis,
apparently for the first time on appeal. (Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. __, __-__ [125
S.Ct. 2317, 2325-2332]; see also id. at pp. __, __ [125 S.Ct. at pp. 2347, 2351]
(dis. opn. of Thomas, J.).) On the basis in part of “the transcript of voir dire” (id.
at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2326], fn. 1; accord, id. at pp. __, __ [125 S.Ct. at pp.
2332, 2333]), the court in Miller-El engaged in “side-by-side comparisons of some
black venire panelists who were struck and white panelists allowed to serve” (id.
at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2325]) and examined the prosecution’s treatment of
challenged and accepted prospective jurors who were “similarly situated” (id. at
p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2329]). The court explained that prospective jurors may be
similarly situated without an exact match between or among them with respect to
the reasons that a party gave for challenging them. “None of our cases announces
a rule that no comparison is probative unless the situation of the individuals
compared is identical in all respects, and there is no reason to accept one.” (Id. at
p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2329], fn. 6.) But the court did not articulate a minimum
standard of similarity at which point the comparisons will begin to be probative.
Assuming without deciding that comparative prospective juror analysis for
the first time on appeal is constitutionally required in these circumstances, in
which the trial court found a prima facie case of discrimination (see People v.
Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 71; cf. id. at pp. 69, 71 [undertaking that analysis
even though no prima facie case established, when prosecutor permitted to
comment despite the lack of such a case]), we undertake that analysis. Doing so,
we find nothing in the record that entitles defendant to relief.
In Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. __ [125 S.Ct. 2317], the Supreme Court said of
peremptory challenges in state courts that “choices [to exercise them are] subject
to myriad legitimate influences, whatever the race of the individuals on the panel
from which jurors are selected.” (Id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2324].) These
65
influences include matters that “are often the subjects of instinct.” (Id. at p. __
[125 S.Ct. at p. 2332].) The court cautioned, however, that “[i]f a prosecutor’s
proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-
similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove
purposeful discrimination to be considered at Batson’s third step.” (Id. at p. __
[125 S.Ct. at p. 2325]; accord, id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2330].) It further stated
that failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire examination on a subject a party
asserts it is concerned about is evidence suggesting that the stated concern is
pretextual. (Id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2328]; accord, id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at
p. 2330], fn. 8.) In a similar vein, the court stated that “the credibility of reasons
given can be measured by ‘how reasonable, or how improbable, the explanations
are; and by whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial
strategy.’ ” (Id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at p. 2329].) In another component of its
discussion, Miller-El instructs that if a “stated reason does not hold up, its
pretextual significance does not fade because a trial judge, or an appeals court, can
imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as false.” (Id. at p. __ [125
S.Ct. at p. 2332].) Finally, the Miller-El court thought it fitting to consider, albeit
as a less significant factor than the side-by-side comparisons it undertook, the
statistic that “the State had peremptorily challenged 12% of qualified nonblack
panel members, but eliminated 91% of the black ones.” (Id. at p. __ [125 S.Ct. at
p. 2340].)
The fundamental inquiry remains the same after Miller-El as before: is there
substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that the prosecutor’s reasons
for excusing prospective jurors were based on proper grounds, and not because of
the prospective jurors’ membership in a protected group? If so, then defendant is
not entitled to relief. In undertaking this inquiry, we note that the question is not
whether we as a reviewing court find the challenged prospective jurors similarly
66
situated, or not, to those who were accepted, but whether the record shows that the
party making the peremptory challenges honestly believed them not to be similarly
situated in legitimate respects. As we have observed, Miller-El teaches that if a
“stated reason does not hold up, its pretextual significance does not fade because
. . . an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have been shown up as
false.” (Miller-El, supra, 545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2317, 2332].) Accordingly,
we confine our inquiry to whether the prosecutor here honestly found pertinent
and legitimate dissimilarities between members of the group he challenged and the
group he accepted.
Defendant compares 17 prospective jurors (including three African-
Americans and two Latinos) whom the prosecution accepted at various stages
against eight African-Americans whom it peremptorily challenged, and argues that
the accepted prospective jurors shared characteristics with the excluded African-
Americans.
It is true that a number of the accepted jurors had isolated and discrete
similarities with the rejected African-American prospective jurors. There are, in
fact, dozens of such commonalities. For example, the prosecutor stated that
because Mark T., a challenged prospective juror, had witnessed the effects of drug
abuse, and the brother of another challenged prospective juror, Gloria W., had died
of a drug overdose, they might be unduly swayed by defense evidence involving
defendant’s use of drugs. Several of the accepted jurors, however, including Lloyd
B., Charleen H., Mary S., Holly A., and Richard R., had also witnessed the effects
of drug abuse on family members, and one accepted juror, Beverly R., stated that
drug usage might be mitigating. The prosecutor also stated that Mark T.’s mother
was a psychiatric social worker and his sister a psychologist, and that he and
another prospective juror he peremptorily challenged, Ray F., would find
psychological or psychiatric testimony unduly helpful. In general, then, the
67
prosecutor implied that people exposed to psychology or psychiatry might give too
much deference to testimony regarding mental health issues. Several of the
accepted jurors, however, including Beverly R., Willie G., Danielle M., Marion R.,
Sheila B., Charleen H., Brian H., and Mary S., had had similar exposure, or
otherwise indicated they might be receptive to mitigating testimony on mental
health issues. The prosecutor stated that Ray F.’s Berkeley background might
make him too liberal, but an accepted juror, Dorothy B., apparently once lived in
Berkeley. The prosecutor asked her no questions on the subject. As noted, Miller-
El states that failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire examination on a
subject a party asserts it is concerned about is evidence suggesting that the stated
concern is pretextual. (545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2317, 2328]; accord, id. at p. __
[125 S.Ct. at p. 2330], fn. 8.)17 The prosecutor stated that he peremptorily
challenged George M. in part because he did not graduate from high school. But
that was also true of R.G., whom he accepted even though she had only a ninth-
grade education. These are but a few examples of similarities found in prospective
jurors the prosecutor accepted and African-Americans he challenged.
Defendant, relying on Miller-El’s teaching that failure to engage in any
meaningful voir dire examination on a subject a party asserts it is concerned about
is evidence suggesting that the stated concern is pretextual (Miller-El, supra, 545
U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2317, 2328]; accord, id. at p. __, fn. 8 [125 S.Ct. at
17
Another criterion, namely that “the credibility of reasons given can be
measured by ‘how reasonable, or how improbable, the explanations are; and by
whether the proffered rationale has some basis in accepted trial strategy’ ” (Miller-
El, supra, 545 U.S. __, __ [125 S.Ct. 2317, 2329]), does not come into play here.
(See Boyde v. Brown (9th Cir. 2005) 404 F.3d 1159, 1170, 1171 [prosecutor’s
peremptory challenges based on views about people from “ ‘certain areas’ of
Perris,” a city in Riverside County, “did not rely on any group-based
presupposition.”].)
68
p. 2330]), notes that the prosecutor cited the damaged condition of the automobiles
associated with M.S. and V.R., “without asking them a single question about the
circumstances of the accidents causing the damage or whether the cars even
belonged to them.” He is correct that the prosecutor did not question either
prospective juror about the automobiles.
Nevertheless, the trial court’s ruling that the prosecutor’s conduct was within
constitutional bounds is supported by substantial evidence. In each case, the
prosecutor justified the excusals by stating, either explicitly by giving the ultimate
conclusion or implicitly by giving examples, that he believed the prospective
jurors he challenged were dissimilar to those he accepted because members of the
former group were at least unlikely—and in some cases would be unwilling—to
impose the death penalty. The record supports the prosecutor’s justifications and
provides substantial evidence in support of the court’s ruling. To provide a few
examples, Mark T. testified, “my feelings are mixed about [capital punishment],
yes.” He worried about “[t]he idea of disproportionate penalties, inequities, . . .
distribution of the penalty . . . .” Gloria W. had written on her jury questionnaire
that the death penalty is justified if the crime has been established “without any
doubts,” a higher standard than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard the guilt
phase jury applied. Asked whether it was right for the state to kill, she initially
testified, “I don’t know whether anyone should take anyone’s life, except if it’s a
matter of self-defense, to defend yourself.” She did later state that “I think the
state has a right to do that.” Still, even on the written record before us, she seemed
reluctant to impose the death penalty. Ray F. testified, “I was a student in the 70’s,
and I think I was probably totally against the death penalty then. And now I’m an
older person, and I’m not certain I’m actually for the death penalty or against it.”
He characterized his prior position as “extreme.” Charles S. equivocated about the
death penalty, and testified in a manner from which the prosecutor could infer that
69
he was lukewarm about it. It was undisputed that M.S. disported himself
arrogantly (wearing a cap and sunglasses in court) and arrived late one day, and
thus nothing contradicts the prosecutor’s assertion that M.S. appeared to him not
to respect the judicial process. Moreover, the prosecutor correctly noted that M.S.
mentioned mental illness as a possible reason not to impose a death sentence.
George M. testified, “I don’t want to be on no jury that’s going to kill somebody or
convict them for life, anyway.” The record of V.R.’s testimony does not contradict
any of the prosecutor’s observations about her. The prosecutor stated that Ethel F.
was not friendly toward him and appeared to be aloof toward the other prospective
jurors, but kept smiling at defendant, and nothing in the record before us
contradicts that concern.
We also note that the prosecutor accepted three African-American jurors,
which we find here to be “an indication of the prosecution’s good faith in
exercising his peremptories.” (People v. Snow (1987) 44 Cal.3d 216, 225.) If the
prosecutor were filtering prospective jurors by race, presumably he would have
challenged Charleen H., an African-American woman of Puerto Rican descent.
Charleen H. stated that the justice system is biased against the poor; she opined
that “it depends how much money you have, I think, where you go to prison and
how you’re treated.” But Charleen H. also stated that she strongly favored the
death penalty. Sheila B., an African-American whom the prosecutor did not
challenge peremptorily or for cause, opined that the criminal justice system is
“less than just,” and amplified on this sentiment by explaining that “our society’s
inherently racist, it’s inherently prejudiced, it’s inherently classist. So if you’re
from a certain class, race, whatever group, you may be unjustly either found guilty,
not guilty[,] or things happen to you.” But Sheila B. also had a law enforcement
background, moderately favored the death penalty in principle, and, stating “I
believe it has a place in the judicial process,” declared that she would vote for it if
70
it appeared on the ballot. Overall her questionnaire showed her to be thoughtful,
sober-minded, and analytical. Plainly the prosecutor was looking for prospective
jurors bearing a favorable attitude toward his cause, not race or ethnicity, in
assessing them.
In sum, the prosecutor gave reasons showing that he honestly viewed the
prospective jurors he challenged as not similarly situated, in legitimate respects, to
those he accepted. The trial court accepted those reasons, and substantial evidence
in the record supports the its ruling. On our own review of the record, we think it
clear that the prosecutor was looking, without regard to race, for sober-minded
jurors who led orderly lives and could impose the death penalty if the evidence
warranted it. The prospective jurors, including Latinos and African-Americans,
whom he accepted were of that type, and those he rejected were lacking in the
essentially pro-death-penalty qualities he was seeking. Accordingly, we conclude
that defendant’s Batson-Wheeler claim is without merit.
III. Victim-Impact
Evidence
Defendant contends that the trial court violated his due process rights
analogous to the constitutional guaranties against ex post facto laws by admitting
victim-impact evidence of his crimes. He failed to raise any objection at trial on
this ground, and has forfeited the claim. (Evid. Code, § 353.) In any event, we
have rejected this contention (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th 382, 394-395),
and adhere to that conclusion.
Next, defendant contends that the victim-impact evidence ranged beyond the
constitutionally permissible, the statutorily permissible, and the scope the trial
court authorized. He invokes the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
federal Constitution, sections 7, 15, 17, and 24 of the California Constitution, and
Penal Code section 190.3, factor (a), which permits the jury to consider the
circumstances of the crime in determining sentence.
71
The trial court held a lengthy pretrial hearing on the matter. Defendant
sought to exclude irrelevant and unduly inflammatory evidence. (Evid. Code, §§
350, 352.) He agreed that case law permitted introducing evidence of the impact
of Lees’s death on her family, “a glimpse of the life that the defendant
extinguished,” including “her personal characteristics, the things they did together,
. . . and the hard work that she did,” and “the loss to the community.” He objected
to things that in his view cast no light on the uniqueness of Sarah Lees’s death but
are common to many deaths, such as the cleaning of the house, the funeral
arrangements, and the facts that she would never have children and would not be
available to care for her mother in her old age.
The trial court explained in detail that Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S.
808, and People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, limited the scope of victim-
impact evidence the prosecution could introduce in aggravation. (See Edwards, at
p. 835 [referring to the “outer reaches of evidence admissible as a circumstance of
the crime”].) The court stated that Edwards imposed on it an “affirmative duty” to
curtail or exclude evidence that “conveys only irrelevant information or
inflammatory rhetoric which would divert the jury’s attention from its proper role
or which would invite an irrational or purely subjective response,” and limited the
prosecution to evidence tending “to show the uniqueness of the victim, Sarah
Anne Lees, a quick glimpse of her life, her personal characteristics and the impact
her murder has had on her family and community.” It pared the prosecution’s
witness list from 27 individuals to “seven witnesses, possibly eight.” To reduce
the emotional impact of the testimony, it directed the prosecution to be more
leading on direct examination than is traditionally permitted. “I’m not saying
suggestive questions . . . I won’t allow those—but leading questions which direct
the witness towards specific subject areas . . . and . . . away from areas that are not
72
permitted.” And it also directed the prosecution to tell each witness in advance not
to offer any opinion about the crimes, defendant, or the proper sentence.
Thereafter, as mentioned, the jury heard testimony about Lees’s compassion,
loyalty, and extroversion, and the psychological effects of her death on other
individuals and the community.
Defendant asserts that some of the testimony falls outside the ambit of what
is permitted elsewhere. For example, he argues that in Cargle v. State
(Okla.Crim.App. 1995) 909 P.2d 806, the court questioned the relevance of
testimony that the victim “saved the county thousands of dollars by a personal
fundraising effort . . . and was thoughtful and considerate to his family . . . .” (Id.
at p. 829.) Under this view, he contends, it was error to allow testimony about
Sarah Lees’s charitable contributions. But the testimony conformed to what the
parties here agreed would be relevant. Thus, if error occurred at any point, it was
invited. (See People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 905.) Moreover, except
insofar as defendant asserts that it violated due process to admit evidence whose
introduction he opposed below as substantially more prejudicial than probative
(People v. Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 431), his constitutional claims, along
with his statutory claim under factor (a) of section 190.3, are forfeited (Evid.
Code, § 353) because he failed to raise them in the court below; rather, he was
actively involved in shaping the scope of the victim-impact testimony and limited
his objections to evidence that might be irrelevant or unduly prejudicial (id.,
§§ 350, 352).
In any event, there was no error or violation of any constitutional right in
permitting the testimony. “In 1987, the United States Supreme Court held that the
Eighth Amendment barred evidence of a murder victim’s personal traits and the
effect of the murder on surviving relatives. (Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S.
496, 509 (Booth); see South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805, 811-812
73
[barring prosecutorial argument on the matter].) Four years later, in Payne [v.
Tennessee], supra, 501 U.S. 808, the high court reversed itself, and held that the
states could choose to admit evidence of the ‘specific harm’ the defendant had
caused, to wit, the loss to society and the victim’s family of a ‘unique’ individual.
(Id. at p. 825.) According to Payne, the federal Constitution bars such evidence
only if it is ‘so unduly prejudicial’ as to render the particular trial ‘fundamentally
unfair.’ (Ibid.) [¶] Shortly after Payne, this court held that victim impact
evidence is generally admissible as a circumstance of the crime under section
190.3, factor (a). (People v. Edwards, supra, 54 Cal.3d 787, 835-836.) Payne and
Edwards apply even where, as here, the murder occurred while Booth, supra, 482
U.S. 496, was in effect. (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 394-395.)”
(People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th 514, 565.) “We have reviewed the victim
impact evidence admitted at the penalty phase of trial, together with the
prosecutor’s opening and closing arguments, and conclude the admission of the
evidence did not surpass constitutional limits. Family members spoke of . . . how
they missed having the victims in their lives.” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29
Cal.4th 381, 444.) As we have described, various witnesses painted a portrait of
Lees as compassionate, loyal, and extroverted, and made clear that they mourned
her loss. The community, too, mourned her death by placing a bronze statue of her
at the Pleasanton public library. The testimony, though emotional at times, fell far
short of anything that might implicate the Eighth Amendment. It was traditional
victim-impact evidence, “permissible under California law as relevant to the
circumstances of the crime, a statutory capital sentencing factor.” (People v. Cole
(2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1233.)
IV.
Evidence of Prior Violent Criminal Activity
Defendant contends that introducing evidence of three prior unadjudicated
criminal incidents under section 190.3, factor (b), violated several of his
74
constitutional rights and rights conferred by state decisional law, as specified
below. We do not agree.
“Before an individual juror may consider evidence of other violent criminal
activity in aggravation, he or she must find the existence of such activity beyond a
reasonable doubt. [Citation.] There is no requirement, however, that the jury as a
whole unanimously find the existence of other violent criminal activity beyond a
reasonable doubt before an individual juror may consider such evidence in
aggravation.” (People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 585.)
In each instance at issue here, defendant argues that absent evidence that
should have been excluded, there was insufficient evidence of the uncharged
crimes to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. In each case, however,
we conclude that the evidence he believes should have been excluded was
properly admitted, and once it was introduced, a rational juror could have found
the essential elements of each unadjudicated crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
A. Stealing From Doris Dantes
In the pretrial notice to defendant of the aggravating evidence it planned to
introduce, the district attorney’s office included “[t]he incident . . . in which the
defendant burglarized the apartment of Doris Dantes . . . and violently resisted his
apprehension immediately following that offense . . . .” In moving to exclude the
evidence, defendant cited the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
federal Constitution, section 190.3, factor (b), and People v. Boyd (1985) 38
Cal.3d 762, in which we held that only violent crimes against people, not property,
may be introduced in aggravation as evidence of prior violent criminal activity.
(Id. at pp. 776-777.) Defendant argued in the court below that there was
insufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find true beyond a reasonable
doubt that he committed any crimes against any person during the Dantes episode.
Denying the motion, the trial court reasoned that, based on its reading of prior
75
testimony, the incident involved a battery and the jury could hear evidence of it
under section 190.3, factor (b).
As described more fully in the factual background, ante, Doris Dantes
testified that she awoke to find defendant standing on a stepladder and shining a
flashlight through her first floor apartment window in San Francisco. The two of
them were looking at each other through the window, separated by only a couple
of feet. She was unable to scream, but told him to go away. After unsuccessfully
trying to grab a telephone to call police, she fled. As she ran for the front door,
defendant hurled a brick through the window, almost striking her, and she was
injured by flying shards of glass. Then she began to scream, left the apartment,
and sought help from a neighbor. When she returned later, she saw that her purse
was missing. A neighbor who pursued defendant also testified. In trying to
escape, defendant threw his flashlight at him. Defendant also threatened to take
revenge on the neighbor, who was holding defendant on the ground, while they
awaited the police.
Defendant maintains that under People v. Boyd, supra, 38 Cal.3d 762, 776-
777, evidence of the incident was inadmissible because the episode involved only
violence against property, namely an effort to obtain Dantes’s purse by breaking a
window with a brick. He discerns violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as error under
Boyd. We do not agree.18 First, from Dantes’s testimony, a rational jury could
18
Defendant did not raise a Fifth Amendment claim before the trial court and
has failed to preserve it for review. (Evid. Code, § 353.) As we stated in People
v. Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, “ ‘the objection must be made in such a
way as to alert the trial court to the nature of the anticipated evidence and the basis
on which exclusion is sought, and to afford the People an opportunity to establish
its admissibility.’ [Citation.] What is important is that the objection fairly inform
the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific reason or
(footnote continued on next page)
76
have decided that defendant committed robbery when he threw the brick at Dantes
to force her to abandon her purse, and then entered the apartment and stole the
purse. Robbery may be accomplished when fear prevents a victim from retaining
possession of property within her reach that she could have retained absent the
robber’s intercession. (People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th 894, 955.) Second, he
threw his flashlight at a neighbor in pursuit of him. That is assault. (§ 240.) The
incident fell squarely within factor (b) of section 190.3, and evidence of it was
properly admitted.
B. Robbing Semadar Barzel and Regena Mannello
In the pretrial notice to defendant of the aggravating evidence it planned to
introduce, the district attorney included “[t]he incident . . . in which the defendant
robbed Semadar Barzel of her purse and contents . . .” and the separate incident of
an assaultive purse-snatching robbery that injured Regena Mannello. Rejecting a
challenge that introducing evidence of the Barzel incident would violate
defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights because the evidence was obtained by
means of an unlawful detention, the trial court permitted the prosecution to
introduce the evidence. Defendant renews his Fourth Amendment claim on
appeal. He maintains that the police lacked sufficient reason to justify an
investigative stop and detention. Without the evidence obtained from that stop, he
(footnote continued from previous page)
reasons the objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the party
offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a fully
informed ruling. If the court overrules the objection, the objecting party may
argue on appeal that the evidence should have been excluded for the reason
asserted at trial, but it may not argue on appeal that the court should have excluded
the evidence for a reason different from the one stated at trial.” (See also People v.
Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896.) That is what defendant attempts to do here,
but without success. He has forfeited his Fifth Amendment claim.
77
contends, there was insufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find true
beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed any crimes against Barzel.
In a pretrial proceeding in this case, a police officer testified that he and his
partner detained defendant after they observed him loitering at night in a crime-
ridden residential neighborhood for an extended period, perching on the trunk of a
parked automobile, entering an automobile from the passenger side before
attempting to drive it away (the police later learned that he was trying to steal it),
and following both a woman and a police officer (who may have been dressed in
plain clothes) in a suspicious manner, as if stalking them. Pursuant to the
detention, the officer performed a patdown search on defendant and felt a hard
object. At that point, defendant fled and was tackled by the police, who recovered
a gun.
Assuming for purposes of argument that the Fourth Amendment may be
invoked in an attempt to exclude evidence the prosecution wishes to present solely
at a capital sentencing proceeding (but see U.S. v. Ryan (10th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d
1268, 1271 [ordinarily “the exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction of the
fruits of illegal searches and seizures during sentencing proceedings”]), it is plain
that the police had sufficient cause to detain and question defendant. “[A]n officer
may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop
when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is
afoot. [Citation.] While ‘reasonable suspicion’ is a less demanding standard than
probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of
the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective
justification for making the stop. [Citation.] The officer must be able to articulate
more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch” ’ of criminal
activity. [Citation.] [¶] . . . An individual’s presence in an area of expected
criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable,
78
particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime. [Citation.] But
officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in
determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant
further investigation. Accordingly, we have previously noted the fact that the stop
occurred in a ‘high crime area’ among the relevant contextual considerations . . . .”
(Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123-124.) In making such a stop, police
may conduct “a protective patdown search for weapons.” (Id. at p. 121.)
The circumstances here justified an investigative detention of defendant. He
was following a woman and a police officer in a suspicious manner; he was
loitering in a high-crime residential area at night; and he entered a car in a peculiar
manner and then tried to drive it away. “Lurking in the dark by residences in the
wee hours of the morning is unusual for law-abiding persons” (Battle v. State
(Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2004) 868 So.2d 587, 589), and “the officer[s] had reasonable
suspicion that appellant was loitering and prowling” (ibid.). In Terry v. Ohio
(1968) 392 U.S. 1, 6, the court noted the defendant’s “measured pacing” and
“peering,” similar to defendant’s conduct before the officers detained him. The
evidence of the Barzel robbery was properly admitted.
C. Robbing Linda Incardine
In the pretrial notice to defendant of the aggravating evidence it planned to
introduce, the district attorney’s office included “[t]he incident . . . in which the
defendant assaulted and robbed Linda R. Incardine . . . .” Defendant moved to
exclude evidence that Incardine identified him as the robber, arguing that the
procedure used to have her identify him was unduly suggestive, in violation of the
Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution.
When defendant assaulted Incardine, he was wearing a blue sweatshirt with
the hood up, which she had a further opportunity to observe as he fled up the street
in her view. In a pretrial proceeding in 1990 at which Incardine also identified
79
defendant in court, she testified that officers took her to where they had arrested
him and asked her if she recognized him. At the arrest scene, she asked to have
him raise his sweatshirt hood, and once he did, she positively identified him.
The trial court denied the motion to exclude the identification, ruling that the
identification procedure was constitutionally sound.
Defendant asserts that the identification procedure violated the Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and that without
the identification evidence there was insufficient evidence for a rational trier of
fact to find that he assaulted and robbed Incardine. We do not agree that any Sixth
Amendment violation occurred.19
“In order to determine whether the admission of identification evidence
violates a defendant’s right to due process of law, we consider (1) whether the
identification procedure was unduly suggestive and unnecessary, and, if so, (2)
whether the identification itself was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the
circumstances, taking into account such factors as the opportunity of the witness to
view the suspect at the time of the offense, the witness’s degree of attention at the
time of the offense, the accuracy of his or her prior description of the suspect, the
level of certainty demonstrated at the time of the identification, and the lapse of
time between the offense and the identification. [Citations.] [¶] The defendant
bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of an unreliable identification
procedure.” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th 926, 989.)
Defendant has not met his burden of establishing unreliability. Incardine
identified defendant by his distinctive clothing and his general description within
an hour after he assaulted and robbed her. She had a good opportunity to view his
19
Defendant’s Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims are forfeited for the
reasons stated in footnote 18, ante, page 76.
80
clothing as he fled. As she had done in 1990 during a pretrial proceeding, she
identified him in court without hesitation. The foregoing indicia of reliability
sufficed to make the identification evidence admissible. (See People v.
Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th 926, 990.)
D. Defendant’s Jailhouse Statement Showing Lack of Remorse
The district attorney’s office notified defendant that it would use against him
his statement to Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputies that he felt no remorse for
killing Lees and would repeat the crime if given the opportunity. Defendant
opposed the statement’s prospective admission, arguing that doing so would
violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution and Evidence
Code section 352. The trial ruled that the statements could be admitted.
Defendant argues that his extrajudicial statement should have been excluded
because it was procured in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
and to counsel while under custodial interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384
U.S. 436) and his Sixth Amendment right not to be interrogated outside counsel’s
presence (see Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201, 205-207). We do not
agree.
In an in limine hearing on the admissibility of defendant’s statement,
Alameda County Deputy Sheriff Allen Boyd testified that on May 16, 1991, he
and Deputy Lavada Spence were escorting Huggins to court. According to Boyd,
defendant asked Spence if she would applaud if he were given the death penalty,
and she said she would. Defendant and Spence briefly engaged in a mild
squabble, and Boyd commented, “I see you’re still making friends.” Defendant
replied, according to Boyd, “Don’t nobody like me anyway, and if I had it to do
again I’d do it the same way. I don’t have any remorse. If I did have remorse, I
wouldn’t have done it in the first place.”
81
Spence testified to the same effect, and explained that the conversation in
question had been precipitated because she had clapped in defendant’s presence
when another jailer pointed out to defendant that he was a convicted criminal.
Spence clapped because she was happy defendant had been convicted. No
Miranda warnings preceded the conversation among her, Boyd, and defendant.
The jailer to whom Spence was referring, Alameda County Sergeant Gary
Schellenberg, testified that defendant’s behavior had irritated him and he told
defendant he was glad defendant was facing the death penalty and hoped
defendant would receive a death sentence. Schellenberg, who had discovered
Lees’s body at the crime scene (ante, p. 12), denied making his comments in an
effort to provoke defendant into an admission; he was merely taking out his
frustration on him. Defendant denied that the conversation with Spence and Boyd
ever occurred. After the court ruled that the testimony was admissible, Boyd and
Spence testified before the jury to the same effect as their in limine testimony.
As we stated in our prior discussion of a Miranda claim, “ ‘Clearly, not all
conversation between an officer and a suspect constitutes interrogation. The
police may speak to a suspect in custody as long as the speech would not
reasonably be construed as calling for an incriminating response.’ ” (People v.
Haley, supra, 34 Cal.4th 283, 301; see People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th
926, 993.) Defendant initiated the conversation by asking Spence if she would
applaud if he received the death penalty. “Focus[ing] primarily upon the
perceptions of the suspect” (Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, 426 U.S. 291, 301), we
conclude that nothing in the exchanges that followed suggests that the sheriff’s
deputies made any statement that might reasonably be construed as calling for a
response that might reflect unfavorably on defendant in later trial proceedings.
Defendant’s Massiah claim also lacks merit. The Sixth Amendment to the
federal Constitution provides in pertinent part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the
82
accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.” This right “attaches ‘ “at or after the initiation of adversary judicial
criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing,
indictment, information, or arraignment.” ’ [Citation.] After it both attaches and is
invoked, any incriminating statement the government deliberately elicits from a
defendant in counsel’s absence is inadmissible at that defendant’s trial.
[Citations.]” (People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1079.) “ ‘The question
here is whether under the facts of this case a Government agent “deliberately
elicited” incriminating statements . . . within the meaning of Massiah’. . . .”
(Fellers v. United States (2004) 540 U.S. 519, 524.) “This inquiry is objective and
does not focus on the subjective intentions of the state officer.” (Beaty v. Stewart
(9th Cir. 2002) 303 F.3d 975, 991.)
We conclude that the officers did not deliberately elicit incriminating
statements from defendant. “The Sixth Amendment is violated only by deliberate
action, not ‘whenever—by luck or happenstance—the State obtains incriminating
statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached.’ ” (Beaty v.
Stewart, supra, 303 F.3d 975, 991.) At most, Spence needled defendant by
clapping in his presence when Schellenberg commented on his conviction and the
possible punishment. This may have been provocative, but it was not calculated to
elicit incriminating statements, and defendant made none. Later, defendant began
a conversation, outside Schellenberg’s presence, by asking if Spence would
applaud again if he received the death penalty, and she said she would. It was only
at that point that he volunteered a statement that could be used in aggravation.
Spence merely replied to defendant’s question and did not, in our view, solicit any
response. In sum, at no point did defendant’s jailers “intentionally create[ ] a
situation likely to induce [him] to make incriminating statements without the
assistance of counsel.” (People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th 894, 993.)
83
E. Statute of Limitations on Discovery of Razor Blades
The district attorney’s office notified defendant that it planned to introduce
aggravating evidence of certain unadjudicated violent criminal activity (§ 190.3,
factor (b)); namely, evidence of the incident “occurring on or about July 24, 1987,
in which the defendant was [caught] in possession of a razor blade in the North
County Jail in Oakland, California . . . ,” a violation of section 4574, subdivision
(a). The notice alleged that similar incidents occurred on or about February 5 and
March 25, 1988. Defendant sought to exclude the evidence, contending that the
alleged incidents had transpired so long ago that he was denied his due process
rights because he could not properly defend against the charges—e.g., any razor
blades that may have been confiscated were no longer available for examination
regarding their potential for abuse. The court disagreed and ruled against him.
Thereafter, as noted, sheriff’s deputies testified about three occasions on which
they found defendant possessed contraband razor blades, and defendant testified
that he had innocent reasons for possessing them.
Defendant argues that all three incidents were stale at the time of trial and the
statute of limitations to prosecute him for them had expired. He contends that to
introduce evidence of them violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the federal Constitution and to a reliable penalty determination
under the Eighth Amendment thereto. He has failed to preserve his Eighth
Amendment claim for review. (See ante, p. 76, fn. 18.) In any event, both claims
are without merit.
“In People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, we concluded that the
admission of violent criminal conduct occurring many years before the penalty
trial is not necessarily inconsistent with a defendant’s rights to due process, a
speedy trial and a reliable penalty determination. We reasoned that ‘the state has a
legitimate interest in allowing a jury to weigh and consider a defendant’s prior
84
criminal conduct in determining the appropriate penalty, so long as reasonable
steps are taken to assure a fair and impartial penalty trial.’ (Id., at p. 1161.) We
identified those ‘reasonable steps’ as including notice of the evidence to be
introduced, the opportunity to confront the available witnesses, and the
requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When these steps have been
taken, we concluded, the remoteness of the offense affects its weight, not its
admissibility. (Ibid.)” (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 136-137.)
So it is here. Defendant acknowledges our precedents, but urges a different
result in his case because the razor blades were not available for inspection. We
disagree. The incident reports contained ample information about the incidents.
Furthermore, the witnesses’ testimony provided a full opportunity for cross-
examination, and defendant availed himself of it. Finally, each juror was
instructed not to consider any of the alleged incidents in the calculus of penalty
unless he or she concluded individually that the prosecution had proved it beyond
a reasonable doubt (see People v. Griffin, supra, 33 Cal.4th 536, 585). We adhere
to our prior conclusions. (See People v. Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th 93, 136-137.)
V.
Impeaching Mental Health Expert With Defendant’s Statement
Defendant claims that his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the federal Constitution, along with sections 15 and 16 of article I
of the California Constitution (specifically his rights not to be a witness against
himself and to counsel), were violated when the prosecution impeached his expert
witness on mental health with his prior extrajudicial statement, made when he was
being evaluated for competency to proceed to trial, about certain circumstances of
the crime.
On December 1, 1986, defendant told Dr. John Peschau, a psychiatrist who
was examining him to determine his competency (ante, p. 3), that he was surprised
by the charges against him and that the victim “shouldn’t have got in the way of a
85
good robbery. All I wanted was the cocaine. What I used was an Uzi type
shotgun, automatic. When I get out I’m going to get a machinegun for all those
people.”
During the first trial, in 1990, defendant moved for an order to prohibit the
prosecution from impeaching him with any statements he made to Dr. Peschau in
the course of the court-ordered competency examination. He cited, inter alia,
People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the
federal Constitution. The trial court granted the motion.
At the second penalty phase, in 1993, defendant made a similar but not
identical motion, to a different judge (the Hon. Jeffrey W. Horner) from the judge
who oversaw the guilt phase (the Hon. Stanley Golde). This time he argued that
because the evidence had been obtained in the course of evaluating his
competency, rather than in connection with criminal proceedings, it was irrelevant
and substantially more prejudicial than probative. (Evid. Code, §§ 350, 352.) He
contended that the facts of the crime belied his comments and that he was not
presenting a defense to the crimes, which had already been adjudicated, or a case
in mitigation based on temporary insanity at the time of the crimes; instead, his
case in mitigation was that his actions were the product of longstanding mental
defects.
The trial court ruled that it would be improper “to restrict the ability of the
district attorney to cross-examine [mental health expert witnesses] as to all
information that has some relevance to their opinions.” It denied the motion.
Thereafter, the prosecutor asked defendant’s psychiatric expert witness, Dr.
Woods (see ante, p. 47), if the statement, which the prosecutor quoted to the jury,
showed a goal-oriented and coherent mental state.
Defendant does not renew his state law arguments of irrelevance and undue
prejudice (Evid. Code, §§ 350, 352). As for his constitutional claims, he failed to
86
present them to the different judge who was overseeing the second penalty phase.
He did not call the court’s attention to the written motion he had filed on this
question during the guilt phase three years earlier, and the record does not show
that the court was aware of any basis for his motion other than the relevance and
undue prejudice provisions of Evidence Code sections 350 and 352. He has,
accordingly, failed to preserve them for review. A motion to exclude evidence,
like an oral objection in open court to the admission of evidence, must “fairly
inform the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific
reason or reasons the . . . party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the
party offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a
fully informed ruling. . . . A party cannot argue the court erred in failing to
conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct.” (People v. Partida, supra, 37
Cal.4th 428, 435; see People v. Lilienthal, supra, 22 Cal.3d 891, 896.)20
20
On the merits, defendant argues that, as we have most recently said in
People v. Dunkle, supra, 36 Cal.4th 861, “statements that a defendant makes in the
course of a mental competency examination pursuant to section 1369 may not be
used in a trial on the question of his guilt.” (Id. at p. 905.) A departure from this
rule is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. (People v. Arcega, supra, 32 Cal.3d
504, 523.) He asserts that the Arcega rule applies to sentencing determinations as
well. He further argues that his case is indistinguishable from People v. Harris
(1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 943, in which the Court of Appeal held, “in the event the
prosecution wishes to rebut defense testimony concerning the defendant’s mental
capacity to commit an offense, the prosecution must conduct a psychiatric
examination using psychiatrists or psychologists other than those who examined
the defendant for the purposes of determining competency to stand trial.” (Id. at
p. 949.) His Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim rests on Satterwhite v.
Texas (1988) 486 U.S. 249, and Powell v. Texas (1989) 492 U.S. 680. As stated in
Powell, “once a capital defendant is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right
to counsel precludes [a psychiatric] examination without first notifying counsel
that ‘the psychiatric examination [will] encompass the issue of their client’s future
dangerousness.’ ” (Powell, supra, 492 U.S. at p. 681, first bracketed material
added here, second in Powell.) Defendant asserts that he did not enjoy the
protection conferred by the Sixth Amendment when the court ordered his
(footnote continued on next page)
87
Defendant argues that if we find his Sixth Amendment claim forfeited,
counsel’s failure to raise it before Judge Horner constitutes ineffective assistance
of counsel. We disagree.
As noted, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth
Amendment entails deficient performance under an objective standard of
professional reasonableness and prejudice under a test of reasonable probability of
an adverse effect on the outcome. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668,
687-688, 694.) The Strickland standards also apply under article I, section 15 of
the California Constitution. (E.g., People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th 690, 718.)
As Strickland makes clear, to be entitled to relief on the ground of ineffective
assistance of counsel, defendant must show both deficient performance and
resulting prejudice. (People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 199.) Accordingly,
we need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient. Whether it was
or was not, we discern no prejudice to defendant. The evidence that was presented
to the jury was insignificant. Though the prosecutor’s reference to Dr. Peschau’s
interview did not flatter defendant, it was brief and pointed as much to an
individual in the grip of delusions as to one who realistically posed a serious
continuing menace if he should somehow be set free. (Cf. People v. Arcega,
supra, 32 Cal.3d 504, 525-526.) The jury knew defendant never would be in a
position to obtain and fire a machine gun no matter what verdict it might reach.
Moreover, the other aggravating evidence was strong, including the circumstances
of the crimes, defendant’s record of unadjudicated violent crimes and felony
(footnote continued from previous page)
competency examination, and thus his statements suggesting future dangerousness
could not be introduced in evidence against him. Because he has forfeited his
Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims, however, we express no opinion on the merits
of these arguments.
88
convictions, his statement to sheriff’s deputies evincing a lack of remorse for
murdering Lees, and the impact of Lees’s death on a number of people. The
mitigating evidence was of mixed value: it showed that defendant had suffered
from a hard childhood and perhaps mental problems, but it also showed that his
antisocial behavior was partly responsible for his childhood difficulties and
persisted even after he received and benefited from the care and devotion of others
in a decent setting. In sum, the mitigating evidence was not particularly
compelling. If defendant had preserved his Sixth Amendment claim for review,
we would conclude that any error in admitting the evidence was harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24
(Satterwhite v. Texas, supra, 486 U.S. 249, 256, 258 [applying the Chapman
standard]; see Arcega, supra, at p. 525 [applying the Chapman standard to a Fifth
Amendment claim of improper use of evidence gleaned from a competency
examination]), and reversal of the judgment would not be required. Because we
find no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the admission of the
evidence, we conclude that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel. (People
v. Mayfield, supra, 5 Cal.4th 142, 199.)
VI.
Penalty Phase Instructional Error Claims
A. Accuracy of Instruction on Possessing Deadly Weapon in Jail
As described (ante, p. 50), the jury heard evidence pursuant to section 190.3,
factor (b), that on three occasions defendant was caught with contraband razor
blades in jail, in violation of section 4574, subdivision (a). The razor blades had
been broken away from a modern form of safety razor. Defendant moved to have
the jury instructed to disregard this evidence on the ground that, as a matter of law,
the razor blades were not deadly weapons within the meaning of section 4574,
subdivision (a) (“any person who, while lawfully confined in a jail . . . possesses
therein any . . . deadly weapon . . . is guilty of a felony . . . .”) The court denied
89
the motion. Following defendant’s testimony that he had innocent reasons for
possessing the razor blades, the jury was instructed, in pertinent part, that each
juror could consider the episodes in aggravation under factor (b) of section 190.3
if he or she found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had violated section
4574.
The jury was instructed, “To determine whether or not an item is a deadly
weapon, you must look to the surrounding circumstances; the capability of its
being used to inflict death or great bodily injury; and any inferences that may be
drawn as to its intended possession.” Defendant argues that the jury should have
been instructed that the weapon must not only be capable of producing but also
must be likely to produce death or great bodily injury, and that the court’s failure
to so instruct the jury violated his right to have the jury instructed on every
element of the offense. (See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th 287, 383 [“The
trial court, having decided to identify the other criminal activity and to instruct on
its elements, had a duty to do so accurately and not mislead the jury.”].) He
discerns violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
federal Constitution.
If error had occurred, however, it would have been invited by defendant. The
reporter’s transcript makes clear that defendant proposed the instruction and not
only acquiesced in, but endorsed, a minor modification to it. The trial court chose
defendant’s language in place of language the prosecutor preferred. Defendant
cannot now complain of error. (People v. Horning, supra, 34 Cal.4th 871, 905.)
In any event, there was no error. The instruction the court gave reflects a
standard instruction defining a deadly weapon that existed at the time of trial.
(Former CALJIC No. 16.291 (5th ed. 1988) [“A deadly weapon means any
weapon, instrument or object that is capable of being used to inflict death or great
bodily injury.”].) The standard instruction for section 4574, subdivision (a),
90
defines a “deadly weapon” as “any weapon, instrument, or object that has the
reasonable potential of being used in a manner that would cause great bodily
injury or death.” (Judicial Council of Cal. Crim. Instns. (2006) CALCRIM No.
2746; accord, CALJIC No. 7.34.02 (Oct. 2005 ed.); see People v. Martinez (1998)
67 Cal.App.4th 905, 908-912.) The standard instruction did not exist at the time
of trial, but it is materially indistinguishable from that which defendant requested.
B. Other Claims of Instructional Error
Three miscellaneous claims, regarding burden of proof, lingering doubt, and
premeditation and deliberation, require only brief discussion. First, neither
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, nor Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S.
584, has changed our prior conclusions regarding burden of proof. “The death
penalty law is not unconstitutional for failing to impose a burden of proof—
whether beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence—as to
the existence of aggravating circumstances, the greater weight of aggravating
circumstances over mitigating circumstances, or the appropriateness of a death
sentence.” (People v. Brown, supra, 33 Cal.4th 382, 401.) Second,
notwithstanding defendant’s view that the evidence justified requiring the trial
court to instruct the jurors that they could consider any lingering doubt they might
have had whether defendant intended to kill Lees, the trial court properly denied
defendant’s request to give the instruction. (People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th
704, 739; People v. Sanchez (1995) 12 Cal.4th 1, 77 [“there is no requirement,
under either state or federal law, that the court specifically instruct the jury to
consider any residual doubt of defendant’s guilt”].) Third, defendant
unsuccessfully requested that the jury be instructed that it could consider in
mitigation any perception it might have that defendant lacked premeditation or
deliberation before the murder of Lees. But such a pinpoint instruction is not
required (see People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 730), and the instructions
91
given to the jury that it could consider the circumstances of the crime and anything
that might extenuate its gravity (§ 190.3, factors (a), (k)) sufficed to permit it to
consider the question.
VII. Prosecutor’s
Remarks
During Closing Argument
Defendant claims that his state and federal rights to a fair trial, to due process
of law, to the assistance of counsel, to confront the witnesses against him, and to a
reliable sentencing determination (U.S. Const., amends. V, VI, VIII, XIV; Cal.
Const., art. I, §§ 7, 15; People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1227) were
violated by improper remarks the prosecutor made during closing argument at the
penalty phase. We disagree.
Defendant finds objectionable the following remarks by the prosecutor: (1)
Dr. Woods’s mental health testimony was so questionable that it could amount to
malpractice; (2) it would benefit the community if the jury returned a death
verdict; (3) defendant’s poor record of conduct while incarcerated, including
possessing hidden razor blades and escaping from the custody of the California
Youth Authority before murdering Lees, showed that he would pose a continuing
threat, including to female prison guards, if confined among the general prison
population; and (4) life behind bars under a sentence of life imprisonment without
possibility of parole would be relatively pleasant for defendant, because he could
enjoy conjugal visits, marry, watch television, socialize with friends, and the like.
Because defendant did not object to, or request that the jury be admonished
in light of, any of the foregoing remarks, he has forfeited the claim. “ ‘As a
general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct
unless in a timely fashion—and on the same ground—the defendant made an
assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard
the impropriety.’ ” (People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th 226, 259.)
92
Defendant maintains that if we find his claim forfeited, then counsel’s failure
to ask the court to intervene amounts to a denial of his right to the effective
assistance of counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the federal Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution.
As stated, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth
Amendment entails deficient performance under an objective standard of
professional reasonableness and prejudice under a test of reasonable probability of
an adverse effect on the outcome. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668,
687-688, 694.) The Strickland standards also apply to defendant’s claim under
article I, section 15 of the California Constitution. (E.g., People v. Waidla, supra,
22 Cal.4th 690, 718.)
“Failure to object rarely constitutes constitutionally ineffective legal
representation . . . .” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th 381, 424.) Moreover,
“[i]f the record on appeal fails to show why counsel acted or failed to act in the
instance asserted to be ineffective, unless counsel was asked for an explanation
and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory
explanation, the claim must be rejected on appeal.” (People v. Kraft, supra, 23
Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069.) This was not a situation in which there could be no
satisfactory explanation for counsel failing to object to the remarks of which
defendant now complains. For one, at the outset of his closing argument, the
prosecutor told the jury to disregard anything he would later argue that was not
supported by evidence. “You don’t make your decision based on hearsay things
that . . . weren’t presented to you from a live witness in court. You don’t make
your decision based upon what I say, because what I say is not evidence, and you
know that. You don’t make your decision based upon what . . . [defense counsel]
says because that’s not evidence. And to do anything other than . . . to make your
decision based upon the facts you have here as presented in this case would be to
93
do an injustice. [¶] You should keep that in the back of your mind when you’re
discussing what the evidence is. In other words, you’re not to speculate about
what could have happened, what should have happened, what did happen. You
decide what, in fact, was proved here in court.” Defense counsel could reasonably
have decided that the prosecutor’s prefatory admonition amounted to a sufficient
warning to the jury to disregard any inferences not fairly supported by the
evidence, and that repeatedly objecting to specific remarks, even if successful,
could draw more attention to their content than the jury would otherwise pay in
light of the prosecutor’s initial caveat.
Even if defendant had objected to the prosecutor’s remarks, the objections
would properly have been overruled, for in the main the remarks were not
objectionable. The prosecutor was entitled to argue that Dr. Woods was not
credible and was biased in favor of the defense. This was legitimate argument;
even “harsh and vivid attacks on the credibility of opposing witnesses are
permitted” (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 522), and suggesting that Dr.
Woods’s testimony was so poorly founded that it amounted to malpractice fell
within those bounds. It was also legitimate argument for the prosecutor to argue
that if the jury could not protect society by sentencing defendant to death, its
failure to do so would create an incentive for society to engage in improper self-
help to protect itself. “These remarks were a permissible form of argument
designed to show the circumstances in which society may be justified in taking
one life to protect the lives of others.” (People v. McDermott, supra, 28 Cal.4th
946, 1003.) The prosecutor’s comments on defendant’s potential to endanger
others in prison, including female prison guards, if sentenced to life imprisonment
without possibility of parole were likewise proper. We approved of similar
remarks in People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1063-1064.
94
That leaves the question whether the prosecutor was entitled to argue to the
jury that defendant would enjoy a number of benefits under a sentence of life
imprisonment without possibility of parole. We need not address whether the
remarks were improper in this case. Defendant relies on People v. Hill, supra, 17
Cal.4th 800, 838, in which we found similar comments to be improper. But as we
stated, defendant has forfeited the claim by failing to object at trial, and we discern
no ineffective assistance of counsel in that tactical choice. Defense counsel
countered the prosecutor’s statement about life imprisonment without possibility
of parole by arguing in detail that such a punishment was unpleasant and severe.
For all we can discern on this record, counsel may have preferred to offer the
defense’s bleak vision of the tribulations attendant to a lifelong prison sentence
than to cut off discussion on the subject by objecting to the prosecutor’s remarks.
This forecloses defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim (People v.
Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th 978, 1068-1069), and there is no need to discuss the
merits of his contention. We decline to do so.21
21
We note in passing that it is misconduct to misstate the law during
argument (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th 381, 435), but it does not appear
that the prosecutor did so in 1993, when the penalty phase was underway, by
referring to the availability of conjugal visits under a sentence of life
imprisonment without possibility of parole. Current prison regulations prohibit
family, including conjugal, visits of inmates serving a sentence of life
imprisonment without possibility of parole. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3177,
subd. (b)(2) [“Family visits shall not be permitted for inmates who are in any of
the following categories: sentenced to life without the possibility of parole
. . . .”].) But it not does appear to have been the case in 1993, when the prosecutor
made the argument to which defendant now objects, that inmates serving a
sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole were automatically and
necessarily excluded from conjugal visits. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3170-
3178 (1993); id., tit. 15, §§ 3170-3182 (1994).)
95
VIII.
Effect of Guilt Phase on Penalty Phase
Defendant claims that two errors that he argues occurred at the guilt phase—
admitting inculpatory statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384
U.S. 436 (see ante, pp. 17-18), and admitting unreliable hair comparison evidence
(see ante, pp. 20-21)—undermine the reliability of his sentence under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and require its reversal.
We have found no Miranda violation and no impropriety in admitting the hair
evidence, however, so his claim fails for want of a sufficient predicate. He also
argues that errors he argues occurred regarding the special-circumstance findings
(ante, pp. 32-46) undermine his sentence’s reliability. As we explained, however,
any errors regarding the special-circumstance findings were harmless, and again
we reject his claim for want of a sufficient predicate.
IX. Cumulative
Error
Defendant claims that the cumulative effect of errors that occurred during the
penalty phase undermines the reliability of his sentence under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and requires its reversal. We
do not agree. For the reasons stated throughout our discussion of defendant’s
penalty phase claims, in which we found no error, we reject his claim of
cumulative error as well.
X.
Scope of Eligibility Under the Death Penalty Law
Contrary to defendant’s urging, the death penalty law adequately narrows the
class of death-eligible offenders and is not so inclusive as to violate the Eighth
Amendment to the federal Constitution. (E.g., People v. Coffman and Marlow,
supra, 34 Cal.4th 1, 129.)
96
XI.
Delay in Imposing Capital Punishment
Also contrary to defendant’s urging, the time he has spent awaiting execution
does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to
the federal Constitution. (E.g., People v. Lenart (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1107, 1131.)
XII. Sentence
Enhancement for Prior Convictions
Defendant asserts, and respondent agrees, that defendant’s sentence
enhancement for prior convictions under section 667, subdivision (a), must be set
aside because defendant was not represented by counsel during the hearing at
which the trial court imposed it. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has held that this result is constitutionally compelled (Robinson v. Ignacio
(9th Cir. 2004) 360 F.3d 1044, 1050, 1054-1055; see also id. at p. 1056), and
accepting the parties’ jointly held view, we will set aside the sentence
enhancement in this case. (See also People v. Perez (1966) 65 Cal.2d 224, 228-
231 [holding that the state Constitution requires the presence of counsel at
pronouncement of judgment and sentence].) The enhancement may, however, be
imposed at a new hearing at which defendant is represented by counsel, if the
hearing establishes that the enhancement is applicable.
CONCLUSION
The sentence enhancement for prior convictions under section 667,
subdivision (a), is set aside. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
MORENO, J.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J.
BAXTER,
J.
CHIN,
J.
CORRIGAN,
J.
97
DISSENTING OPINION BY KENNARD, J.
In affirming defendant’s capital murder conviction, the majority may be
right. Or it may be wrong. At this point, however, it is impossible to tell, because
of an ambiguity in the appellate record. On its face, the record shows that at the
competency phase of trial the court read to the jury an instruction that was wrong
and would necessitate reversal of the entire judgment. But there is the possibility
that the court gave a correct instruction, which the court reporter then inaccurately
transcribed. (The trial court gave no written instructions to the jury.) In holding
that this court is better able than the trial court to decide what the trial court did
say to the jury, this court, an appellate tribunal, has annointed itself the arbiter of
fact. Unlike the majority, I would have the trial court conduct a hearing to decide,
based on its own recollection of the matter and that of the parties’ trial attorneys,
what the oral instruction said.
I also disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court’s erroneous
response to a question by the jury at the guilt phase of defendant’s capital trial was
harmless. That error, in my view, requires reversal of the special circumstance
findings and the judgment of death.
I
At the jury trial to determine defendant’s competence to stand trial for
capital murder, Psychologist James Palmer expressed his opinion that defendant
suffered from brain damage and was incompetent to stand trial, both because he
did not understand the nature of the proceedings and because he was unable to
cooperate with counsel. Psychiatrist John Peschau reached a similar conclusion,
diagnosing defendant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. But testifying for
1
the prosecution, two psychologists and a psychiatrist were of the view that
defendant was malingering and that he was competent to stand trial. The
prosecution also called three sheriff’s deputies, who testified that defendant’s
behavior while in custody awaiting trial was normal most of the time.
The reporter’s transcript shows that the court gave this oral instruction:
“[A] person charged with a criminal offense is deemed mentally competent to be
charged with the crime against him, if he is capable of understanding the nature
and purpose of the proceedings against him; second, if he comprehends his own
status and condition in reference to such proceedings. [¶] If he is able to assist his
attorney in conducting his defense in a rational manner, the defendant is presumed
to be mentally competent, and he has the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that he is mentally incompetent, as a result of mental defect, or
disorder.” The words of this instruction are similar to the standard CALJIC
instruction defining competence to stand trial, but its meaning is not.1
The reported instruction is wrong. Under California law, a defendant is
incompetent to stand trial if “the defendant is unable to understand the nature of
1
The corresponding portion of the CALJIC instruction states: “[A] person
charged with a criminal offense is deemed mentally competent to be charged with
the crime against him: 1. If he is capable of understanding the nature and purpose
of the proceedings against him; and [¶] 2. If he comprehends his own status and
condition in reference to such proceedings; and [¶] 3. If he is able [to assist his
attorney in conducting his defense] [to conduct his own defense] in a rational
manner. [¶] The defendant is presumed to be mentally competent, and he has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally
incompetent as a result of a mental defect or disorder [or developmental
disability].” (CALJIC No. 4.10 (4th ed. 1984 rev.).) The most significant
differences between this instruction and the instruction appearing in the reporter’s
transcript are these: (1) The CALJIC instruction has a semicolon and the words
“and 3.” after “such proceedings,” but the reporter’s transcript has a period and a
new sentence; (2) the CALJIC instruction has a period and a new sentence after
the words “rational manner,” but the reporter’s transcript has a comma.
2
the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a
rational manner.” (Pen. Code, § 1367, subd. (a), italics added.) But under the
instruction that, according to the reporter’s transcript, the trial court gave in this
case, the jury did not have to decide whether defendant was able to assist his
attorney in a rational manner in order to find him competent; that instruction told
the jury defendant was competent if he understood the proceedings and his own
status in relation to those proceedings. Thus, if the court reporter accurately
transcribed the trial court’s spoken instruction to the jury, the instruction removed
from the jury’s consideration a crucial element of the competency determination
from the jury’s consideration, namely, whether defendant was able “to assist
counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.”
From this cold record the majority makes a factual determination that the
trial court actually instructed the jury correctly, but that the court reporter
inaccurately transcribed the instruction. The majority asserts: “Because the court
clearly was reading a standard instruction, it is far more likely that the punctuation
supplied by the court reporter failed to accurately reflect the meaning conveyed by
the court’s oral instructions than that the court misread the standard instruction.”
(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 8.) How does it know? This court has seldom, if ever, been
faced with a party’s allegation that a reporter’s transcript contained incorrect
punctuation. So far as this court knows, misreading by the trial court is just as
likely as mispunctuation by the reporter.
The majority claims, without citation of authority, that this court is “not
bound by the punctuation supplied by the court reporter.”2 (Maj. opn., ante, at
p. 8.) I disagree.
2
The majority goes on to acknowledge that the instruction in the reporter’s
transcript does not merely differ in punctuation from the CALJIC instruction, but
that certain words are also omitted. I will not discuss the majority’s laborious and
(footnote continued on next page)
3
There are three possible explanations for the differences between the
reporter’s transcript and the standard CALJIC instruction: (1) The trial court
deliberately altered the instruction; (2) the court inadvertently misread the
instruction to the jury; or (3) the court read the instruction correctly to the jury,
but the court reporter inaccurately transcribed what the court said. The factual
determination as to which of these three events occurred at trial is to be made by
the trial court, not by this court on review of a cold record.
Although the Attorney General now claims the reporter’s transcript is
inaccurate, the proper time for him to have raised this point was during record
correction proceedings. But at that time the Attorney General made no mention of
the matter. Thereafter, defendant’s opening brief on appeal argued that the trial
court’s competency instruction required reversal of the judgment; that argument
was based on the premise that the court reporter had accurately transcribed the
trial court’s oral instruction. At that time, the Attorney General had another
chance to bring the matter before the trial court by moving to correct the record on
the ground that the instruction was inaccurately transcribed. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 12(c).) Again, he failed to do so.
At the conclusion of the record correction proceedings, the trial court
certified the record of the trial proceedings, including the reporter’s transcript, as
“complete and accurate.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 35.3(d).) That was a factual
(footnote continued from previous page)
complicated attempt to explain why the omission of these words would not have
confused the jury, other than to note that the explanation is based on the premise
that this court may decide that the trial court did not read the instruction with the
punctuation noted in the reporter’s transcript. As I explain in the text, this premise
is false: It is the trial court, not this appellate tribunal, that must decide not only
what the trial court said to the jury, but how the court said it, and thus whether the
punctuation accurately represents the court’s spoken instruction.
4
finding by the trial court that the court reporter had accurately transcribed the
court’s oral instruction at issue here. An appellate tribunal such as this court
cannot second-guess that factual finding, regardless of whether the finding
pertains to punctuation or to the words that the trial court spoke. In the words of
this court more than a century ago: “[W]hen an exception to a particular ruling
has been allowed this court has no authority to strike out any evidence or other
matters stated in connection with such ruling upon the ground that such evidence
was not given, or that such matters are untruly or incorrectly stated . . . . If the
judge has put in incorrect statements of evidence, or other matters bearing upon
his rulings, or has omitted evidence or other matters claimed to be material, the
evil is not remediable here.” (In re Dolbeer’s Estate (1905) 147 Cal. 359, 361,
italics added; see also Marks v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 176, 196; Burns
v. Brown (1946) 27 Cal.2d 631, 636.)
I also disagree with the majority that any instructional error was harmless.
The majority declines to decide whether the error violates the federal Constitution
or is merely a violation of state law. In my view, it is the former. As the United
States Supreme Court has explained: “We have repeatedly and consistently
recognized that ‘the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due
process.’ . . . The test for incompetence is also well settled. A defendant may not
be put to trial unless he ‘ “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
with a reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . [and] a rational as well as
factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” ’ ” (Cooper v. Oklahoma
(1996) 517 U.S. 348, 354, italics added.) Thus, the due process clause of the
federal Constitution requires that both requirements of California’s statutory test
for incompetency be satisfied: Not only must the defendant understand the nature
of the charges, but he must also be able to rationally assist defense counsel. Here,
if the reporter’s transcript is accurate, the trial court’s instruction allowed the jury
5
to find defendant competent without deciding whether he was able to assist his
attorney. Therefore, the instructional error violated the federal Constitution, in
which case the prejudicial effect must be measured under the test the high court
established in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, which requires reversal
unless the prosecution can show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt.
When, as here, the federal constitutional error involves the trial court’s
failure to instruct on a necessary element, reversal is required under the Chapman
test when “the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence
sufficient to support a contrary finding” (Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S.
1, 19); but the error is not prejudicial when it is clear “beyond a reasonable doubt
that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming
evidence” (id. at p. 17).
At the competency proceeding here, defendant contested the omitted element
– his ability to assist his attorney in presenting a defense – by calling a psychologist
and a psychiatrist, both of whom testified that he was incompetent because of his
inability to cooperate with his counsel. Although the majority stresses the strength
of the prosecution’s evidence that petitioner was competent (maj. opn., ante, at
p. 11), the high court in Neder has said that the prosecution’s evidence is irrelevant,
so long as the defense has presented evidence “sufficient to support a contrary
finding.” (Neder v. United States, supra, 527 U.S. at p. 19.) Here, the testimony by
defendant’s expert witnesses was sufficient to support a jury finding that he was
unable to cooperate with his attorneys. Thus, if the trial court’s instruction did
remove from the jury’s consideration the issue of defendant’s ability to cooperate
with his counsel, reversal is required.
To reverse the judgment based on instructional error at the competency
phase is, however, premature, because it is not at all clear whether the trial court
6
did erroneously instruct the jury, or whether the court reporter inaccurately
transcribed the court’s oral instruction to the jury. When a reviewing court
becomes aware that the appellate record may be inaccurate, it “may order the
superior court to settle disputes about omissions or errors in the record.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 12(c)(2).) I would therefore vacate submission of this matter
and direct the superior court to conduct additional record correction proceedings to
determine the true state of the record. In those proceedings the trial court would
hear from the attorneys who tried the case and, based on the court’s own
recollection and that of the attorneys, would determine what the court said in
instructing the competency jury. Thereafter, this court should recalendar the case
for oral argument, and only then should it decide whether instructional error
occurred and, if so, whether that error was prejudicial.
One final note. If the trial court had provided the jury with written
instructions, it would not have mattered whether the court reporter accurately
transcribed the court’s oral instructions to the jury, because when there is an
inconsistency between the trial court’s oral and written instructions, it is assumed
that the jury followed the written instructions. (People v. Osband (1996) 13
Cal.4th 622, 717.) Especially in cases involving the death penalty, it is important
that the trial court “should generally give the jury written instructions to cure the
inadvertent errors that may occur when the instructions are read aloud.” (People
v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 673.) This case illustrates the wisdom of
providing juries with written instructions.
II
Defendant was charged with murdering Sarah Lees, and the prosecution
alleged as special circumstances that the killing occurred during a burglary, a
robbery, and an attempted or completed rape. At the time of the murder, the
7
special circumstances required proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
(People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 44.)
At the guilt phase of defendant’s capital trial, the prosecution presented
strong evidence that defendant acted with the intent to kill Lees, who came home
while defendant was burglarizing her house and was shot to death with her own
shotgun. Expert witnesses testified that the fatal shot was fired into the middle of
her back at a range of between six and 18 inches, and that the shotgun required
between six and seven pounds of force on the trigger to discharge. The
prosecution also presented evidence that Lees had been sexually assaulted.
Testifying on his own behalf, defendant denied that he had intended to kill
Lees. He claimed that he grabbed the shotgun off a counter when Lees ran from
her bedroom toward the front door, and that the gun accidentally discharged.
Criminalist Richard Fox testified that the shotgun could have accidentally
discharged if it had been handled in the manner described in defendant’s
testimony.
The case was submitted to the jury on August 2, 1990. That same day, the
jury signed verdict forms convicting defendant of first degree murder, burglary,
and robbery, leaving only the special circumstance allegations still to be decided.
The jury was still deliberating on the special circumstances on August 8, the third
day of deliberations. On that day, the jury submitted to the trial court three
questions, one of which is pertinent here: “Is intent only in the act itself, or with
the end result. (ex: Knowing someone is shot but not tending to the persons [sic]
best interest) [if shot & let her die . . . is itself killing]3 Is intent before, during, or
after the act of crime.”
3
The bracketed words were written in cursive, while the rest of the note was
printed. It is unclear whether the bracketed words were written by the same
person who wrote the rest of the note.
8
The trial court answered: “[Y]ou can’t X-ray a person’s mind. So how do
you find out the intent with which an act is done? [¶] You look at a statement of
the intent made by the defendant, by the circumstances attending the act, the
manner in which it is done, and the means used. So you look to what he said,
what really happened, how did the killing occur, what did he use to kill, what kind
of an instrument; and from all those things you then decide what is it that he had in
his mind. [¶] In other words, you can infer the intent from the nature of the act.
You can infer the intent from the nature of the act. [¶] In other words, if you act
in a certain way, knowing that a result, death, is likely to follow, whether you want
to kill or not, you still have the intent to kill because if you act in a certain way,
knowing that the result, death, is likely to happen, whether you desire to kill or not
doesn’t make any difference. You still have the intent to kill. [¶] You got it?”
(Italics added.)
The jury’s question shows that it was deadlocked on whether the shooting
of Lees was accidental or intentional, and it wanted to know whether it could find
an intent to kill based on defendant’s conduct after shooting Lees, when instead of
“tending to [her] best interest,” such as summoning assistance, he simply let her
die. When, as in this case, the jury asks a question about the meaning of an
element of the crime, Penal Code section 1138 imposes on the trial court “a
‘mandatory’ duty to clear up any instructional confusion expressed by the jury.”
(People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1212.) But here, the trial court’s
response did not directly answer the jury’s question. It told the jury that in
deciding whether defendant intended to kill Lees, it “doesn’t make any difference”
whether he wanted Lees to die, so long as he knew she was “likely” to die if he
“act[ed] in a certain way.” Based on that answer, a reasonable jury could conclude
that defendant’s actions in accidentally shooting Lees (as he testified) and then
fleeing the scene without treating her shotgun injury or calling for help would
9
justify a finding of intent to kill if, at the time of flight, he knew she was “likely”
to die if he did not help her.
That theory of intent to kill is simply wrong, as this court held in People
v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144. There, two witnesses testified that the
defendant left the murder victim, Neil Wanner, “at the isolated scene of the
shooting despite the bleeding victim’s pleas for help.” (Id. at p. 199.) We said that
this conduct did not satisfy the special circumstance requirement that the
defendant act with intent to kill: “[E]ven if it was apparent to defendant that the
wound might be fatal unless he helped Wanner obtain treatment, a jury could
reasonably conclude that defendant’s behavior suggests only the ‘implied malice’
arising from ‘an abandoned and malignant heart.’ (§ 188.) We have made clear
that this form of ‘implied malice’—a base, antisocial indifference to the
probability that one is causing death—does not satisfy the . . . standard of intent to
kill, which means the specific intent to take another’s life.” (Ibid.)
The trial court’s instruction here is also inconsistent with People
v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425. There, the lead opinion of this court stated, in
dictum, that to act with intent to kill, “ ‘the actor must either desire the result or
know, to a substantial certainty, that the result will occur.’ ” (Id. at p. 434 (lead
opn. of Tobriner, J.), italics added.) Whether or not the Velasquez lead opinion’s
definition is correct,4 here the trial court’s definition of intent to kill was
4
The majority here declines to decide whether, as the lead opinion stated in
People v. Velasquez, supra, 26 Cal.3d at page 434, a person who does not desire
the victim’s death, but knows to a substantial certainty that death with result from
the defendant’s actions, acts with intent to kill. The majority explains that it need
not decide this issue because the trial court’s answer to the jury was harmless
regardless of whether Velasquez is correct. Like the majority, I see no reason to
decide the issue, but for a different reason: In my view, the trial court’s answer to
the jury was prejudicial regardless of whether Velasquez is correct.
10
considerably broader than that of Velasquez, because it told the jury that defendant
acted with intent to kill not only if death was “substantially certain,” but also if it
was only “likely” to follow from his actions.
An inaccurate instruction on an element of a special circumstance
allegation is prejudicial unless the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. (People v. Osband, supra, 13
Cal.4th at p. 681; Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24.) In applying
that test, a reviewing court must not consider “what effect the constitutional error
might generally be expected to have upon a reasonable jury, but rather what effect
it had upon the guilty verdict in the case at hand.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993)
508 U.S. 275, 279, italics added.) Here, based on the trial court’s erroneous
answer to the jury’s question on intent to kill, the jury may well have concluded
that defendant intended to kill Lees because he failed to treat her shotgun injury or
to seek help after he shot her, realizing that Lees was likely to die if he acted in the
manner just described. This theory of the jury was legally unsound. (People
v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d 144.) Because the Attorney General has failed to
show beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s answer to the jury’s question
was harmless, I would reverse the jury’s special circumstance findings and the
judgment of death.
The majority reasons that the error was harmless because, given that Lees
was shot in the back at close range, “the jury would have had to conclude that
defendant knew Lees was substantially certain to die unless medical help arrived
promptly.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 38.) Defendant, however, testified that he did
not know the shot had hit Lees in the back. Even if the jury did not credit this
testimony, it could have concluded that defendant knew Lees was shot but was
unaware of how seriously she was hurt, and thus he did not realize she was
substantially certain to die without treatment. Because there was conflicting
11
evidence at trial about defendant’s knowledge of the extent of Lees’s shotgun
injury, the majority is wrong when it concludes that, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the jury would inevitably have found that defendant knew Lees’s shotgun injury
was substantially certain to result in her death.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained in part I, ante, I would vacate submission in this
case and direct the trial court to determine the accuracy of the reporter’s
transcription of the court’s oral instruction to the jury defining competency to
stand trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 12(c)(2), 36.1(c).) Under that approach, the
resolution of this appeal would depend on the trial court’s determination. (See
p. 7, ante.) The majority’s refusal to vacate submission, however, has compelled
me to consider defendant’s claims of error other than the one pertaining to the trial
court’s oral instruction at the competency trial. For the reasons expressed in part
II, ante, I would reverse the jury’s special circumstance finding and the judgment
of death.
KENNARD,
J.
I CONCUR:
WERDEGAR, J.
12
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion People v. Huggins
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal XXX
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S037006
Date Filed: April 10, 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court: Superior
County: Alameda
Judge: Jeffrey W. Horner
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Peter Gold, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass
and Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorneys General, Ronald S. Matthias and Allan Yannow, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Peter Gold
2269 Chestnut Street, #124
San Francisco, CA 94123
(510) 872-6305
Allan Yannow
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
(415) 703-5955
Opinion Information
| Date: | Docket Number: |
| Mon, 04/10/2006 | S037006 |
Parties
| 1 | The People (Respondent) Represented by Attorney General - San Francisco Office Allan Yannow, Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA |
| 2 | Huggins, Michael James (Appellant) San Quentin State Prison Represented by Jack G. Cairl O'Donnell & Associates 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA |
| 3 | Huggins, Michael James (Appellant) San Quentin State Prison Represented by Peter Gold Attorney at Law 2269 Chestnut Street, Suite 124 San Francisco, CA |
| Disposition | |
| Apr 10 2006 | Opinion: Affirmed |
| Dockets | |
| Dec 17 1993 | Judgment of death |
| Dec 28 1993 | Filed cert. copy of Judgement of Death Rendered 12-17-93. |
| Jun 11 1998 | Counsel appointment order filed Peter Gold Is appointed to represent Applt on His Automatic Appeal. |
| Jun 11 1998 | Compensation awarded counsel |
| Aug 31 1998 | Application for Extension of Time filed By Applt to request correction of the Record. |
| Sep 1 1998 | Extension of Time application Granted To Applt To 11-2-98 To request Corr. of Record. |
| Oct 27 1998 | Application for Extension of Time filed By Applt to request correction of the Record. |
| Oct 29 1998 | Extension of Time application Granted To Applt To 1-4-99 To request Corr. of Record. |
| Dec 31 1998 | Application for Extension of Time filed By Applt to request correction of the Record. |
| Jan 4 1999 | Extension of Time application Granted To 3-5-99 To request Record correction |
| Mar 3 1999 | Application for Extension of Time filed By Applt to request correction of the Record. |
| Mar 4 1999 | Extension of Time application Granted To 5-4-99 To request Record correction |
| Apr 30 1999 | Application for Extension of Time filed By Applt to request correction of the Record. |
| May 5 1999 | Extension of Time application Granted To 7-6-99 To request Record correction |
| May 21 1999 | Change of Address filed for: Atty Peter Gold. |
| Jul 6 1999 | Received copy of appellant's record correction motion appellant's application for correction of transcripts, for addtional record on appeal, for release of sealed transcripts; for reporter's transcript on computer disk; & to settle the record (27 pp.) |
| Jul 12 1999 | Compensation awarded counsel |
| Jun 5 2000 | Motion filed by appellant to compel superior court to hold record settlement proceedings and for order staying certification of record. (note: record certification hearing scheduled for June 9, 2000.) |
| Jun 8 2000 | Opposition filed By Resp to Applt's motion to Compel Superior Crt. to Hold Record Settlement Proceedings Etc. |
| Jun 9 2000 | Order filed: Appellant's "Motion to Compel Superior Court to Hold Record Settlement Proceedings and for Order Staying Certification of Record" is denied. To the extent that it seeks an order compelling proceedings leading to a settled statement, The motion is denied as premature. It is presumed that the Alameda County Superior Court will conduct all necessary and appropriate proceedings leading to a "settled statement" "in place" of a "transcription of any part of the oral proceedings [that] cannot be obtained for any reason" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 35(b)), with a view toward preparing a complete and accurate record on appeal. If the superior court does not act accordingly, appellant may apply to this court for an order compelling it to do so. To the extent that it seeks an order staying the hearing scheduled for June 9, 2000, the motion is denied outright. |
| Jul 31 2000 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Aug 22 2000 | Record on appeal filed C-56 (15,941 pp) and R-120 (10,711 pp) including material under seal; Clerk's Transcript includes 3,654 pages of Juror Questionnairs. |
| Aug 22 2000 | Appellant's opening brief letter sent, due: 10/2/2000 |
| Sep 19 2000 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Gold |
| Sep 26 2000 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) |
| Sep 26 2000 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file AOB. (1st request) |
| Sep 28 2000 | Extension of Time application Granted To 12/1/2000 to file AOB. |
| Nov 27 2000 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file AOB. (2nd request) |
| Nov 28 2000 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Gold. |
| Nov 29 2000 | Extension of Time application Granted To 1/30/2001 to file AOB. |
| Jan 24 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file AOB. (3rd request) |
| Jan 25 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) for atty Gold. |
| Jan 29 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 4/2/2001 to file AOB. |
| Mar 26 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file AOB. (4th request) |
| Mar 27 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 6/1/2001 to file AOB. |
| Mar 27 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Gold. |
| May 24 2001 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Gold. |
| May 24 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file AOB. (5th request) |
| May 29 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 7/2/2001 to file AOB. |
| Jun 21 2001 | Filed: applt's applic. for permission to file oversized opening brief. (AOB submitted under separate cover.) |
| Jun 22 2001 | Order filed: granting applt's "Application for permission to file oversized opening brief." |
| Jun 22 2001 | Appellant's opening brief filed 2 volumes (454 pp.) |
| Jun 27 2001 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Gold |
| Jul 30 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file resp.'s brief. (1st request) |
| Aug 1 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 9/21/2001 to file resp.'s brief. |
| Sep 20 2001 | Application for Extension of Time filed To file resp.'s brief. (2nd request) |
| Sep 21 2001 | Received: Letter from atty. Peter Gold, dated 9/13/2001, advising of the ommission of pp. 171 of the AOB. Pp. 171 submitted and to be made part of AOB. |
| Sep 26 2001 | Extension of Time application Granted To 11/20/2001 to file resp.'s brief. |
| Nov 19 2001 | Request for extension of time filed To file resp.'s brief. (3rd request) |
| Nov 26 2001 | Extension of time granted To 12/20/2001 to file resp.'s brief. Counsel anticipates filing the brief by 3/21/2002. Two further extensions totaling 90 additional days are contemplated. |
| Dec 18 2001 | Request for extension of time filed To file resp. brief. (4th request) |
| Dec 27 2001 | Extension of time granted To 2/4/2002 to file resp.'s brief. Dep. AG Yannow anticipates filing the brief by 3/21/2002. Only one further extension totaling 45 additional days is contemplated |
| Feb 1 2002 | Request for extension of time filed To file resp.'s brief. (5th request) |
| Feb 13 2002 | Extension of time granted To 4/8/2002 to file resp.'s brief. Dep. AG Yannow anticipates filing the brief by 4/8/2002. No further extension is contemplated. |
| Apr 5 2002 | Request for extension of time filed to file resp's brief. (6th request) |
| Apr 11 2002 | Extension of time granted To 4/22/2002 to file resp.'s brief. Dep. Atty. General Yannow anticipates filing the brief by 4/22/2002. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Apr 22 2002 | Respondent's brief filed (236 pp.) |
| May 9 2002 | Request for extension of time filed To file reply brief. (1st request) |
| May 17 2002 | Filed: Suppl. declaration in support of application for extension of time to file reply brief. |
| May 20 2002 | Extension of time granted To 7/12/2002 to file reply brief. |
| Jul 22 2002 | Request for extension of time filed To file applt.'s reply brief. (2nd request) |
| Jul 24 2002 | Extension of time granted To 9/10/2002 to file applt.'s brief. Counsel anticipates filing that brief by 9/10/2002. No further extension is contemplated. |
| Aug 21 2002 | Filed: appellant's application for permission to file oversized reply brief. (brief submitted under separate cover) |
| Aug 23 2002 | Order filed granting applic. of appellant for permission to file oversized reply brief. |
| Aug 23 2002 | Appellant's reply brief filed (150 pp.) |
| Sep 4 2002 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Gold |
| Sep 4 2002 | Counsel appointment order filed appointing Jack G. Cairl to represent appellant for habeas corpus/executive clemency proceedings related to the automatic appeal. |
| Apr 1 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Cairl. |
| Nov 17 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Cairl. |
| Dec 10 2003 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Cairl |
| Feb 9 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Cairl. |
| Apr 14 2004 | Filed: Declaration by attorney Jack G. Cairl requesting progress payment (confidential). |
| May 3 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from atty Cairl. |
| May 6 2004 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Cairl |
| May 10 2004 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Cairl |
| Sep 7 2004 | Related habeas corpus petition filed (concurrent) No. S127630 |
| Sep 29 2004 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Cairl |
| Sep 30 2004 | Filed: Declaration from atty Cairl requesting third progress payment (confidential). |
| Sep 30 2004 | Filed: Declaration from atty Cairl requesting fourth progress payment (confidential). |
| Oct 12 2004 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Cairl |
| Oct 22 2004 | Change of contact information filed for: direct appeal counsel, Peter Gold. |
| Nov 16 2004 | Oral argument letter sent advising counsel that the case could be scheduled for oral argument as early as the January calendar, to be held the week of January 3, 2005, 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. |
| Dec 15 2004 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Cairl |
| Mar 15 2005 | Habeas funds request filed (confidential) |
| Mar 30 2005 | Order filed re habeas funds request (confidential) |
| May 23 2005 | Received: copy of reporter's transcript for hearing on 9/18/1986, from Alameda County Superior Court. |
| Jul 13 2005 | Supplemental briefing ordered The parties are requested to brief the effect, if any, of Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. ___ [125 S.Ct. 2317], on the issues of this case. Appellant is directed to file a supplemental opening brief, limited to this question, on or before August 3, 2005. Respondent is directed to file a supplemental brief, also limited to this question, within 20 days of the filing of the supplemental opening brief. Appellant may file a supplemental reply brief, also limited to this question, within 10 days of the supplemental respondent's brief. George, C.J., was absent and did not participate. |
| Aug 1 2005 | Application to file over-length brief filed appellant's supplemental opening brief. (3,579 word brief submitted under separate cover; 17 pp.) |
| Aug 1 2005 | Order filed Appellant's application for permission to file oversive supplemental opening brief is granted. |
| Aug 1 2005 | Supplemental brief filed appellant's opening brief. (3,579 words; 17 pp.) |
| Aug 5 2005 | Letter sent to: counsel requesting that they each send the court a copy of 2 R.T. 2108-2132, by 8-15-2005. |
| Aug 9 2005 | Received: letter from atty Gold, dated 8-10-2005 in response to court's letter of 8-5-2005. |
| Aug 15 2005 | Received: letter from respondent, dated 8-15-2005, with attached R.T. pages. |
| Aug 15 2005 | Received: letter from atty Cairl, dated 8-10-2005, with attached 2 R.T. 2108-2132. |
| Aug 15 2005 | Received: letter from atty Gold, dated 8-10-2005, requesting that the court disregard his letter of 8-5-2005. |
| Aug 19 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file supplemental respondent's brief. (1st request) |
| Aug 24 2005 | Extension of time granted to 9/1/2005 to file respondent's supplemental brief. Extension is granted based upon Deputy Attorney General Allan Yannow's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 9/1/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Sep 1 2005 | Application to file over-length brief filed to file respondent's supplemental brief. (3530 word brief submitted under separate cover) |
| Sep 1 2005 | Filed: Supplemental proof of service of application to file respondent's oversize supplemental brief and respondent's supplemental brief. |
| Sep 7 2005 | Order filed Respondent's application to file oversize supplemental brief is granted. |
| Sep 7 2005 | Supplemental brief filed respondent's brief. (3530 words; 13 pp.) |
| Sep 9 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's supplemental reply brief. (1st request) |
| Sep 13 2005 | Extension of time granted to 9/21/2005 to file appellant's supplemental reply brief. Extension is granted based upon counsel Peter Gold's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 9/21/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Sep 20 2005 | Application to file over-length brief filed to file supplemental appellant's reply brief. (3,272 word brief submitted under separate cover; 15 pp.) |
| Sep 20 2005 | Order filed appellant's application for permission to file oversize supplemental brief is granted. |
| Sep 20 2005 | Supplemental brief filed appellant's supplemental reply brief. (3,272 words; 15 pp.) |
| Sep 22 2005 | Oral argument letter sent advising counsel that case could be scheduled for oral argument as early as the November calendar, to be held the week of November 7, 2005, in Sacramento. 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. |
| Oct 18 2005 | Received: letter from atty Gold, dated 10/14/2005, advising that he will be unavailable for December oral argument calendar. |
| Oct 19 2005 | Letter sent to: counsel advising that oral argument will not be scheduled for December 2005 calendar, however, this case may be scheduled for argument as early as January 2006. |
| Dec 14 2005 | Case ordered on calendar January 10, 2006, 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco |
| Dec 23 2005 | Filed letter from: atty Peter Gold, dated 12/20/2005, re focus issues for oral argument. |
| Dec 29 2005 | Received: letter from atty Gold, dated 12/27/2005, re additional aurthority for oral argument. |
| Dec 29 2005 | Filed letter from: DAG Yannow, dated 12/29/2005, re focus issues for oral argument. |
| Dec 30 2005 | Received: letter from respondent, dated 12-30-2005, with additional authority. |
| Jan 10 2006 | Filed: stipulation of counsel regarding Justice Chin's participation in the case. |
| Jan 10 2006 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Jan 17 2006 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Gold |
| Apr 10 2006 | Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full Majority Opinion by Moreno, J. -----joined by George, C.J., Baxter, Chin, Corrigan, JJ. Dissent by Kennard, J. -- joined by Werdegar, J. |
| Apr 24 2006 | Rehearing petition filed by appellant. (453 words; 3 pp.) |
| Apr 25 2006 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing to July 7, 2006 or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first. |
| May 24 2006 | Rehearing denied Opinion modified. Kennard, J., is of the opinion the petition should be granted. |
| May 24 2006 | Opinion modified - no change in judgment |
| May 24 2006 | Remittitur issued (AA) |
| May 24 2006 | Order filed (150 day statement) |
| May 26 2006 | Received: acknowledgment of receipt of remittitur. |
| Aug 29 2006 | Received: letter from U.S.S.C., dated August 24, 2006, advising petition for writ of certiorari filed on August 18, 2006 as No. 06-6060. |
| Sep 28 2006 | Received: copy of appellant's petition for writ of certiorari. (5 pp.) |
| Oct 30 2006 | Certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court |
| Briefs | |
| Jun 22 2001 | Appellant's opening brief filed |
| Apr 22 2002 | Respondent's brief filed |
| Aug 23 2002 | Appellant's reply brief filed |
