Citation 45 Cal. 4th 1, 190 P.3d 664, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323
People v. Lindberg
Filed 8/28/08
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
S066527
v.
GUNNER JAY LINDBERG,
) Orange
County
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. 96CF0685
A jury found defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg guilty of the first degree
murder (Pen. Code, § 187)1 of Thien Minh Ly and found he personally used a
knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The jury further found true special circumstance
allegations that defendant committed murder in the attempted commission of
robbery (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), now subd. (a)(17)(A)) and because of
the victim’s race, color, religion, nationality, or country of origin (§ 190.2, subd.
(a)(16) (“hate-murder” special circumstance)).
At defendant’s penalty trial, the jury returned a death verdict. The trial
court denied defendant’s motion for new trial (§ 1181) and automatic application
to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) and sentenced him to death. This
appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)
1
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
1
We affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Prosecution Guilt Phase Case
1. The Murder of Thien Minh Ly
Defendant concedes that the prosecution proved he murdered Ly on the
Tustin High School tennis courts on January 28, 1996.
The evidence showed that on January 28, 1996, between 8:30 and 9:00
p.m., Thien Minh Ly left his family’s home in Tustin wearing his rollerblades and
leaving behind his wallet and car keys. When Ly did not return home, his family
telephoned the police the next day.
On the same morning, around 7:45 a.m., Frank Armenta, a groundskeeper
at Tustin High School, noticed someone wearing rollerblades lying on one of the
tennis courts. As he approached, Armenta noticed the person was not breathing
and saw blood on his shirt and a cut on his neck. He asked two nearby school
employees to call the police.
When the police responded, they found Ly dead. Next to Ly’s body, they
recovered a cap and a single key on a key ring. The key fit the locks at Ly’s
residence.
Ly had suffered multiple injuries. A pattern contusion (i.e., having “some
pattern like linear marking”) and abrasion comprising an area about five inches by
four inches appeared on the right side of Ly’s face, extending from his forehead to
his right cheek and ear. A contusion and an abrasion appeared on the left side of
Ly’s forehead, and a contusion appeared on his mid-nose area and below his left
eye. Redness was visible on his left cheek. Ly had suffered five and a half-inch
and three and a half-inch slash wounds on the right and left sides of his neck,
respectively. Each of these wounds had irregular edges, suggesting the perpetrator
did not inflict a single wound, but probably cut and then extended the cut. The
2
slash wounds to Ly’s neck had been inflicted close in time to his death but not
post mortem. Ly had suffered multiple deep stab wounds on the right and left
sides of his chest that penetrated his internal organs, linear abraded areas that were
consistent with being caused by the pulling of a knife from a deep penetrating
wound, stab wounds on his right upper arm, a stab wound in his abdominal area,
and an abrasion on his right hand. Some of the chest wounds penetrated through
the body. Ly had suffered about 22 wounds to his chest and abdominal areas,
some inflicted from the front and some from the back. Each wound had been
inflicted by a single-bladed knife or sharp object with a blade about an inch to an
inch and a quarter in width. The maximum depth of penetration was about four
and one-half inches. Ly had been stabbed about 14 times in the heart. The
multiple stab wounds that perforated Ly’s heart, both lungs, diaphragm, liver,
duodenum, and kidney had caused Ly to bleed to death.
2. Defendant’s Confession to Ly’s Murder
Walter Ray Dulaney IV, also known as Robert Dulaney, testified he was
defendant’s cousin and friend and had known defendant all his life. Dulaney
previously had been convicted of first degree assault and burglary and, at the time
he testified, was in custody in Missouri for shooting at someone. Sometime
during the five years before trial, Dulaney, defendant, and defendant’s brother
Jerry2 formed a gang called the Insane Criminal Posse (ICP). In 1995, primarily at
defendant’s urging, the gang became involved in the white power movement. By
“white power,” Dulaney meant that Whites were superior to all other races. He
said defendant shared this view. Dulaney, who was part Japanese, did not
consider himself to be any race other than “American.”
2
Dulaney testified that defendant at various times used the name of his
brother, Jerry Lindberg, as well as the name “Gunner Dulaney,” and the nickname,
“Swiss G.”
3
On February 29, 1996, Dulaney, who was living in Alamogordo, New
Mexico, received a handwritten letter from defendant dated February 23, 1996 (the
February 23d letter). Defendant had addressed the letter to “Dear Bro, ex-con
2/11 Rob” and stated in relevant part: “Oh, I killed a jap a while ago. I stabbed
him to death at tustin High school I walked up to him Dominic was with me and I
seen this guy Roller blading and I had a knife. We walked in the tennis court
where he was I walked up to him, Dominic was right there. I walked right up to
[unintelligible] him and he was scared I looked at him and said, ‘oh, I thought I
knew you’ and he got happy that he wasn’t gona get jumped. then I hit him with
one of my mother fuckers and he feel on the ground and he said in a very low
voice ‘what the fuck’ and ‘you can have whatever I got.’ I have nothing only a
key. You can have it’ then I said ‘you got a car,’ oh I pulled the knife out a
butcher knife! and he said ‘no’ then I put the knife to his throught and asked him
‘Do you have a car.’ And he grabed my hand that I had the knife in and looked at
me, trying to get a discription of me so I stomped on his head 3 times and each
time said ‘stop looking at me’ then he was kinda knocked out Dazzed then I
stabbed him in the side about 7 or 8 times he rolled over a little so I stabbed his
back about 18 or 19 times then he layed flat and I slit one side of his throught on
his jugular vain. Oh, the sounds the guy was making were like uhhh then Dominic
said, ‘do it again’ and I said ‘I already did, Dude’ ‘ya, do it again’ so I cut his
other juggular vain, and Dominic said ‘kill him do it again.’ I said, ‘he’s already
dead’ Dominic said, ‘stab him in the heart.’ So I stabbed him about 20 to 21 times
in the heart and we took off. . . . [T]hen I wanted to go back and look, so we did
and he was dieing just then taking in some bloody gasps of [illegible] air so I
nudged his face with my shoe a few times then I told Dominic to kick him, so he
kicked the fuck out of his face and he still has blood on his shoes all over [smiley
face] then I ditched the knife, after whiping it clean onto the side of the I5 freeway
4
[smiley face] here’s the clippings from the news paper and we were on all the
news channels 2/11 Insane Loc in having a ball in tustin wish you were here. . . .”
(Errors in original.)
After Dulaney read the letter, his wife gave it to his mother and stepfather,
who then gave the letter to Alamogordo police, all of which occurred on the same
day. Alamogordo police brought the letter to the attention of the Orange County
District Attorney’s Office and Tustin police.
The next day, March 1, 1996, Dulaney spoke by telephone to defendant
who told him the murder “gave [him] a rush,” “like a high. Better than a drug.”
Defendant told Dulaney that he “killed the Jap,” that he “slit his throat and stabbed
him a whole bunch of times,” and that he “couldn’t stop.” Defendant told
Dulaney he killed Ly “for racial movement [sic].”
On March 5, 1996, Tustin Police Detectives Todd Bullock and Bruce
Williams interviewed Dulaney about the letter he had received from defendant.
Dulaney denied he had spoken with defendant since he had received the letter
because he did not want defendant to be in more trouble than he already was.
When Detective Bullock asked Dulaney how defendant felt about Asians, Dulaney
said he did not know, as they never talked about it.
Dulaney later moved to Missouri with his wife. Sometime in the early part
of 1997, while living in Missouri, Dulaney was shot in the stomach by somebody
who yelled, “You want to put your cousin on death row, here is death row.”
Dulaney did not seek medical help, but pulled the bullet from his stomach himself
using tweezers and a lug wrench as he had been trained to do in the “Young
Marines.”3 Dulaney did not report the gunshot wound to police because, at that
time, he did not want to violate the conditions of his parole and return to prison.
3
At defendant’s request, during defendant’s trial, Dr. Richard Fukumoto, a
pathologist with the Orange County Coroner’s Office, examined Dulaney’s
(Footnote continued on next page.)
5
On April 11, 1997, Dulaney telephoned Carl Waddell, an investigator with
the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, and informed the investigator that
defendant had told him the murder was racially motivated. On April 24, 1997,
Investigator Waddell and Tustin Police Detective Thomas Tarpley interviewed
Dulaney in Missouri.4 Dulaney repeated that defendant said the murder had been
committed for “the racial movement.” Dulaney said he had not previously told the
police about his telephone conversation with defendant because he was afraid and
did not want to snitch on defendant any more than he had. Dulaney told
Investigator Waddell that “when he [Dulaney] testified that he was a dead man.”
Sometime before he telephoned Waddell on April 11, 1997, Dulaney
received a letter from defendant while defendant was in custody awaiting trial in
this case. In the letter, defendant wrote that Dulaney’s parents were “2/11,”
meaning they were dead because they had turned defendant in. Dulaney and
defendant also used the term “2/11” to mean “armed robbery” to show that their
gang was “for real” and not “some punk gang or nothing.” After giving
defendant’s February 23d letter to police, Dulaney was afraid defendant would kill
him. Dulaney became depressed and admitted himself to a “mental rehab” facility
because he felt responsible that defendant could receive the death penalty.
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
stomach wound. Dr. Fukumoto observed an almost circular scar between the size
of a dime and that of a nickel just above the beltline on the left side. Dr.
Fukumoto testified the size of the scar was consistent with a .38-caliber bullet. Dr.
Fukumoto could not rule out the possibility that Dulaney had been shot with a
bullet and had cauterized the wound.
4
During this interview, Investigator Tarpley observed Dulaney’s stomach
wound and believed it was a “more recent wound” that had not yet completely
healed.
6
Dulaney received no promises from either the prosecution or the authorities in
Missouri in exchange for his testimony at defendant’s trial.
3. Defendant’s Arrest and the Search of His Apartment
In the early morning hours of March 2, 1996, police officers executed a
search warrant at defendant’s apartment in Tustin with the assistance of the
Orange County Sheriffs Department SWAT team. They arrested defendant, who
was in the living room, and Domenic Christopher,5 who had fled through a
window but was quickly apprehended nearby. Bob Mix, who was present in the
apartment with defendant, was detained and taken to the police station.
On a wall in the bedroom shared by defendant and Christopher, police
officers observed a poster that read across the top, “Celebrate Martin Luther King
Day” (“Martin Luther King” poster). The bottom of the poster read, “If they
would have shot four more, we could have had the rest of the week off from
work.” The word “death” was written below “Luther” in “Martin Luther King.”
The police seized the followings items from defendant’s bedroom. (1) A
notebook containing writing on numerous pages. One writing was entitled
Blessed Be Ye Ears that discussed “killing the meek,” talked extensively about
“devastation and death,” called Robert Dulaney “Ex-Con,” stated that “Dominic”
was a “2/11” member but had not reached any “levels,” and declared that “Death
is apperant in all my members eyes, kill spill the blood of the meek. The meek
shall inharent shit. The stronge shall survive my tounament of death” (errors in
original);
5
Before the parties made their closing argument, the trial court granted
defendant’s request to take judicial notice of copies of court records in Orange
County Superior Court No. 96CF1165, showing Christopher had been charged by
information with murder of Thien Minh Ly and found guilty of the first degree
murder of Ly. The trial court informed the jury of the judicially noticed court
records.
7
(2) a box bearing the words “Mixed Fruit” and “Gunner’s Box,” and two
pairs of gloves on top of the box;
(3) a Bible with “Presented [¶] to Bambi [illegible] [¶] by Gunner
Lindberg” inscribed on the inside front cover and listing the names of White
supremacist organizations, a White supremacist leader, and a White supremacist
newsletter on the last several pages. Inserted among the pages of the Bible were
various papers and printed material, including:
(a) an application for the N.A.A.W.P. (National Association for the
Advancement of White People);
(b) a newsletter dated August 1994 and entitled “The Talon Euro-
American alliance” that described the Aryan Movement, noting it “courageously
offer[s] the white race its only hope for survival”;
(c) a piece of paper that read “Failure to speak up, a silent and deadly
killer” written by Jack Mohr, a “Brigadier General” who heads a White
supremacist organization known as “The Crusade for Christ and Country,” an
envelope showing Mohr’s return address that was addressed to defendant, an
envelope and a letter dated October 31, 1994, addressed to Mohr and showing
defendant’s name and return address, and two handwritten letters from Mohr
addressed to defendant;
(d) a printed form entitled “The Nationalist Party of Canada
Membership Oath” that read, “I declare that I am a racist who respects other races
with common sense and good will and fair play towards the maintenance of my
racial integrity and identity. [¶] I pledge to establish and maintain the
constitutional racist state homeland. . . .”; and
(e) a piece of paper bearing the title “Pro White Organizations,” listing
the name and addresses of 12 organizations, including the Aryan Research
Fellowship, the Ku Klux Klan, and the White Aryan Resistance;
8
(4) a cardboard box bearing the words “2/11 Insane LOC,” “Insane Loc,”
“I.C.P.,” and “O.G.,” with lightning bolts and two swastikas;
(5) a plastic skull with a motorcycle helmet bearing a swastika across the
top; and
(6) a T-shirt belonging to defendant with a small bloodstain about the size
of a nickel.
4. Defendant’s Statements to Police
After his arrest, defendant was transported to the Tustin police station.
Police Investigator Todd Bullock advised defendant of his rights under Miranda v.
Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, which defendant waived. Bullock conducted two
audiotaped interviews of defendant. During the first interview, defendant
admitted he had heard about the murder of Thien Minh Ly but denied any
involvement.
During the second interview, conducted by Investigators Bullock and Mike
Clesceri, defendant admitted that “2/11” meant “armed robbery” and that he
“wrote the whole [February 23d] letter” to Dulaney to boast and impress his
cousin. Defendant maintained the statements in the letter meant nothing to him.
Defendant said he had heard about the crime from newspapers and television. He
admitted he sent one of the newspaper articles to Dulaney along with the February
23d letter as proof he had written the letter.
Defendant said he was interested in the murder “[c]ause it was an ethnic,”
and “[i]t wasn’t a white person.” Defendant acknowledged his letter to Dulaney
was “nice and detailed.” He said he made up the details, including the seven or
eight stab wounds he inflicted to Ly’s side and the 18 or 19 stab wounds he
inflicted to his back, and acknowledged the newspaper articles specified only that
Ly suffered “multiple” stab wounds. When asked where he had heard about Ly
having a key, defendant said he “[j]ust thought of it” and acknowledged he did not
9
learn about this detail from the newspaper or television news. Defendant admitted
that it was “[k]ind of odd” that Ly had only a key found next to his body and that
defendant had written in the February 23d letter that Ly said he had nothing but a
key.
5. Forensic Evidence
DNA samples were obtained from dried bloodstains on three areas of the
right-hand black glove found on the box in defendant’s bedroom. One of these
DNA samples was mixed, containing DNA from two sources. Ly’s DNA was
consistent with the sample DNA from all three areas of the glove. Defendant’s
DNA was consistent with being one of the sources of the mixed sample.
Christopher was excluded as being a contributor of the blood tested on the glove.
The percentage of the population that could be excluded as having been the
source of the bloodstains on the gloves was 99.999 percent. Based on FBI
national population databases, estimates of the frequency with which the DNA
pattern found on the right-hand black glove (excluding the mixed DNA sample)
occurred was one in two million in the Asian population, one in 30 million in the
Caucasian population, one in 10 million in the African-American population, and
one in three million in the Hispanic population.
The bloodstain found on defendant’s T-shirt that was seized from his
bedroom was consistent with the genetic markings of Christopher, but not Ly.
6. Prior Acts Evidence
a. Attempted Robbery of Emelio Reyes-Martinez
In October 1990, defendant, who was 15 years old, and Kenny Harp went
to a field near San Diego to rob Hispanic people. Defendant and Harp knew that
Hispanics who worked in the field were paid in cash. Emelio Reyes-Martinez, a
Hispanic landscaper, was walking through the field to obtain water and saw
10
Kenny, defendant, and three other boys approach.6 Defendant held a stick about
two feet long and two and a half inches in diameter in his right hand behind his
back. Defendant gestured with his left hand towards Reyes-Martinez, moving his
fingers, and demanding, “Money, money, money.” When Reyes-Martinez told
defendant he did not have any money, defendant hit him on the head with the
stick. Reyes-Martinez again told defendant he did not have any money, and
defendant again hit him with the stick. Defendant struck Reyes-Martinez’s right
arm, causing the bone to protrude.
Believing the beating was not going to stop, Reyes-Martinez began to run
and yell for help. Defendant and Harp followed, pulled at Reyes-Martinez’s arms,
and kicked him until he stumbled and fell. Reyes-Martinez managed to get back
up and started running again, bleeding from his face. Reyes-Martinez thought that
if he fell again, defendant and Harp would “hit [him] to a pulp.” Defendant and
Harp continued to beat Reyes-Martinez, hitting him from behind. Reyes-Martinez
lost $200 or $210 in the attack. Reyes-Martinez’s friends chased defendant and
Harp away. Reyes-Martinez was taken to the hospital, where he received 14 to 19
stitches.
b. Attempted Robbery of Helen Tillman
On October 31, 1990, defendant and Zachery Ellis, each 15 years old and
armed with knives, entered the home of Helen Tillman, an elderly woman who
lived alone, and demanded her money. At trial, Tillman testified a man held a
knife to her neck while restraining her. Defendant or Ellis took $90 that Tillman
had in her purse in her bedroom. Before leaving, defendant struck Tillman on the
6
Although Reyes-Martinez saw about five boys approaching him in the
field, he testified that only defendant and Harp hit him during the attack.
11
right side of her face with his hand, knocking her onto the counter and causing her
face to swell and bruise.
On November 1, 1990, defendant admitted to Oceanside Police Officer
James Sandifer that he and Ellis had entered Tillman’s residence through a sliding
door. Defendant claimed Ellis went into a back room while he remained in the
kitchen with Tillman. Defendant held Tillman by the back collar of her shirt and
admitted he punched her on the right side of her face because he feared she might
escape. Defendant denied having a knife, but admitted he and Ellis took money
from the back bedroom.
Ellis admitted to Officer Sandifer that he was defendant’s friend and that
both he and defendant had been armed with knives when they robbed Tillman.
Ellis had difficulty remembering details of the incident, but testified it was
defendant’s idea to enter Tillman’s residence. Ellis confirmed that on June 11,
1997, he told Investigator Waddell that defendant came out of the back room and
hit Tillman.
7. Evidence Offered to Support the Hate-murder Special-circumstance
Allegation
a. Defendant’s Assault on Tung Le and His Statements While in
Jail
In July 1997, Alejandro Villa, who previously had been convicted of and
imprisoned for numerous crimes, including commercial burglary, grand theft from
a person, grand theft auto, and petty theft, was incarcerated in the same area of the
Orange County Jail where defendant was in custody awaiting trial in this case. At
the time of defendant’s trial, Villa was facing charges for armed robbery, assault
on a peace officer and emergency personnel, battery on a peace officer and
emergency personnel, escape from jail with felony force, and possession of
hypodermic needles and syringes.
12
Tung Le, an Asian inmate, was placed in the same jail modular group as
Villa and defendant. Before Le arrived, defendant told Villa he wanted Le to be
put in their group. When Le arrived, defendant appeared to be excited, rubbing
his hands together and smiling at Le. Defendant told Villa he did not like Le and
thought Le was “a punk, fucking nip,” and that he was “going to get [Le].” At
times, when defendant watched Asians on television, he would mumble or say
something.
While playing cards in the day room, defendant threw Le against a wall and
choked him because Le accused defendant of not following the rules of the game.
On another occasion, during shower call, defendant choked Le in the shower to
the point that Le’s face was purple and blue and his veins and his eyeballs were
bulging. When Villa warned defendant that he was going to kill Le, defendant
told Villa, “[Le] is going to tell, he is going to rat. I got to kill him. I got to kill
him.” Villa then pulled defendant off Le.
While in jail, Villa came to believe that defendant hated Asian people based
on comments he had heard defendant make. Defendant said that Asian speech
sounded like “mice talking, like a fast-forward cassette. . . .” Defendant told
Villa he was in jail “for stabbing a Nip to death.” Defendant explained that as the
knife was going in, “it was a — fleshy kind of sound and feeling.” Defendant
stated that he told a friend, “Let me show you how easy it is to kill a Vietnamese
and get away with it.” Defendant also made “wise cracks” about being the “best
tennis player” because of what had happened on the tennis courts.
Villa denied that he expected to receive anything from the Orange County
District Attorney’s Office in exchange for his testimony in this case.
b. Defendant’s Statements to Ellis and Coworker Rochelle Lopez
Sometime before defendant and Ellis robbed Tillman on October 31, 1990,
defendant told Ellis that he disliked Asians because he “got kicked off Okinawa.”
13
Defendant referred to Asians as “gooks” and Hispanics as “spick[s]” and
“wetback[s].”
Between November 3, 1995 and January 28, 1996, Rochelle Lopez worked
with defendant, whom she knew as Jerry Lindberg, at a K-Mart store in Tustin.
On one occasion in the employee lunchroom, an African-American employee
came in, said hello, and then left the area. Defendant told a supervisor, “I hate that
nigger bitch. She got on my nerves,” or something to that effect. On another
occasion, some Asians walked into the store and defendant said, “There goes
gooks,” or words to that effect. On January 10, 1996, about two and a half weeks
before the murder of Thien Minh Ly, Lopez left K-Mart with Christopher and saw
defendant, who was part of a crowd, pushing and screaming at an Asian man. The
man asked defendant, “Why are you doing this to me?”
c. Defendant’s Written Statements to Dulaney While Incarcerated
on Another Matter Before Ly’s Murder
In a letter to Dulaney postmarked November 3, 1993, defendant wrote, in
part, “Dog, its time to look in to the future this nation is comming to a hult with
the niggers and us. We must choose sides now! for time is comming fast here is an
address for Aryan Racial Unity: Nationalist Party of Canada . . . . [¶] Write them
and get some info and littiture ok and copy it and we’ll bring the 2/11 war party
into effect. . . . [¶] Well, cuz I wan’t to get this address to you so you can get some
info. . . . Tell them you want to get your own party going and would like littiture
to start a part of your own or would like to become apart of your party OK!”
(Errors in original.)
In a letter to Dulaney dated March 10, 1993, defendant stated, in part,
“Well, its different on the streets. I run the W.A.R. group in here. White Arian
resistanse is a action group — were a branch of NVAP National Vastal Arian
Party they dictate we react. in other words they talk — we back them with
violence. Oh, yes, were still runnin ours! Its up to you if you can handel it - I know
14
you can, but without bustin probation is the question. Ask them what there about,
and if they say violence or anything of that nature you know there solid Dogs. If
not don 't fuck with them.” (Errors in original.)
In a letter to Dulaney dated February 13, 1994, defendant stated, in part, “I
hate hole time! I’ve wrote many people no one writes the Gun back, I feel lonely
dog! All I keep lookin forward to is Aug 3rd then I’ll be free, Hey bro I’ll be the
first to say doing time is fuckin hard. After a while you change, your mind just
relates to this kind of life. And that’s not cool because I’m pure fucking evil dog
and thats no shit. All I want to do is hurt and kill, I think of many ways to hurt the
Mt. Vernon people. And I have one!” Defendant ended the letter with “KILL”
(with the “K” written in a style resembling a Nazi swastika), and “kill-kill-kill-
kill-kill-kill-kill” followed by “Them all! with love, insane Loc OG for life.”
(Errors in original.)
d. Defendant’s Written Statements to Others While in Custody in
the Orange County Jail Awaiting Trial in This Case
In an undated letter to Kelly Dresen, defendant wrote, “I’m white to the
bone. 1/2 german 1/2 Indian and I’m 100% against black. [¶] My trial date is now
July 21st, my crime partner got convicted of lst degree murd[er] goes back May
25th for sentencing. I feel sorry for him all he did was stand there well I’m shure
you don’t want to hear all that.” (Errors in original.)
In a letter to Jeremie Overstreet, defendant drew two lightning bolts and
wrote the phrase, “stay white,” followed by, “No better not them hong kong fuee’s
might not like you!” (Errors in original.)
In a letter to Tammy Shoopman, defendant said, “You herd of Tustin High
School? Well a Chino got stabbed to Death on the tennis courts at Tustin High
School while roller Blading. I have a 187 — 211 — and Hate crime.” (Errors in
original.)
15
In an undated letter to Samantha Roby, defendant wrote, “Not much has
changed with me always in trouble — But this time I really did it. I have a lst
degree murder robbery and hate crime and the state of California wants to give me
the death penalty.” (Misspellings and grammatical errors in original.) Defendant
then detailed the murder of Ly, explaining, “Well Super Bowl Sunday ‘96’ Dallas
over Pittsburg, A friend and I were walking home from work — K-mart — I was a
stocker. And we were walking through a high school and my friend saw this dud
and asked if I could kick his ass, I was stoned, and said of course, walked in and
blam I knocked him out with one punch — you know me — And we waited for
him to get up. [¶] When he did he layed there, and was looking at me. I was
already on the run from Mt. Vernon shooting some people with a shot gun. So I
thought he was trying to get a discription of me, so I stomped on his head, then
stabbed him over 51 times, and slashing his neck. Then we left the guy was Asian
so now I’m charged with a 1st degree murder robbery, and a hate crime — so the
want the Death Penalty. Yah I fucked up big this time.” (Errors in original.)
In an undated letter to Vanessa Smrekar, defendant admitted, “I’m in on a
1st degree murder, hate crime and robbery. But, I’m no thief and I’m only ALiL
racist.” (Original formatting.)
e. Expert Testimony on White Supremacists and White Supremacy
Beliefs
Huntington Beach Police Department Sergeant Ronald Miller testified for
the prosecution as an expert on the subject of White supremacy. Miller testified
that a “White supremacist” is “a racist who is oriented toward the superiority of
the White race, believing that it is above all others. They tend to view minorities
as . . . sub-humans. [¶] They are also quite often Antisemitic [sic], even to the
point that they label the Holocaust as a Jewish trick to garner support and
sympathy for the Jews throughout the world. [¶] Those are the two major tenets of
the White supremacist.” Based on his extensive experience with White
16
supremacists and White supremacy groups, defendant’s own words in his letters,
the groups with whom defendant associated, and defendant’s use of the Nazi “SS”
lightning bolts and the swastika symbols, Miller opined that defendant was a
White supremacist.
B. Defendant’s Guilt Phase Case
Walter Ray Dulaney III, Robert Dulaney’s father, testified that, in his
opinion, Robert was a compulsive liar most of the time who liked to brag and tell
“big stories.” For example, Robert told his father that he had an IQ of 550 and had
once run a marathon between Missouri and Hawaii. Walter Dulaney testified that
Robert was not, and could not be, a member of any White supremacy groups
because Robert was Japanese and Apache Indian. Walter Dulaney stated that on
one occasion when Robert was in jail, he was put “in the nut ward.”
Walter Dulaney had known defendant all of defendant’s life. He had never
heard defendant utter any racial slurs and had no information suggesting that
defendant was involved in white supremacy organizations.
On cross-examination, Walter Dulaney admitted that Robert had a swastika
tattoo and an “S.W.P.” tattoo on his hand and that “S.W.P.” could stand for
“Supreme White Power.” Walter became angry at Robert and his mother and
stepfather because they gave defendant’s February 23d letter to the police. Walter
believed a person should not “rat on family.” Walter had suffered two prior felony
convictions, one for stabbing someone who molested his granddaughter and
another for transporting drugs.
Christina Colby worked with defendant7 at K-Mart in January 1996. She
dated defendant and never heard him use any racial slurs or call Asians by any
7
Colby knew defendant as “Jerry Lindberg,” one of several names he used,
as discussed above.
17
derogatory names. Colby knew defendant for only three months. On cross-
examination, Colby testified that she had seen the “Martin Luther King” poster in
defendant’s bedroom and that defendant told her it had belonged to his dead
brother.
Roger Scharf, a private investigator retained by the defense, testified that
the inline skates worn by Thien Minh Ly on the night of his death were Roller-
Blades, model LS Lightning. At the time of Ly’s murder, the skates sold for $139.
On the night before he testified, Scharf and another investigator went to the
Tustin High School tennis courts to determine whether someone standing inside
the courts could be seen by a person walking along the sidewalk directly outside
the courts and around the perimeter. Scharf attempted to simulate the lighting and
weather conditions on the night of the murder. The other investigator stood inside
the courts about eight feet away from the outside fence. Scharf testified that the
screen around the courts “almost totally blocks your vision under good
conditions.” Scharf could not see the investigator standing on the court. When
Scharf shined his flashlight through the screen, he could make out the
investigator’s image but not his facial features. When Scharf had the investigator
move toward him, to within five feet, he could see that the investigator’s skin was
light but could not tell his hairstyle or distinguish racial features.
C. Prosecution Penalty Phase Case
1. Randy Bowers Assault
Around 1992, defendant and Randy Bowers got into an argument, during
the course of which Bowers cursed at defendant’s mother. The police were called
and warned Bowers to stay away from defendant. In July 1995, defendant told
Bowers he wanted Bowers dead. Defendant and Bowers agreed to fight one
evening on Hell’s Road. Bowers and a couple of his friends brought bats to
defend themselves. As Bowers drove onto a driveway, he saw defendant on the
18
tailgate of a truck, holding a shotgun. The truck was parked on the side of the
road. Defendant shot through the windshield of Bowers’s car, striking Neal
Eubank in the arm and near his right eye. When Bowers put his car in reverse, he
noticed six of defendant’s friends armed with bats and “lots of guns, 22’s.”
Bowers and Eubank sought help from a nearby resident and entered the
resident’s house. The occupants wrapped Eubank’s arm and called the police.
Meanwhile, defendant, armed with a .410 shotgun, entered the house and asked
Eubank, “Hey pussy, how do you feel now?” Bowers ran away carrying a
baseball bat, but got caught in a nearby barbed wire fence. Defendant pointed his
shotgun at the back of Bowers’s head. Eventually, Bowers untangled himself,
jumped over the fence, and ran away from defendant. During the chase, Bowers
heard gunshots that sounded like they were fired from a .410 shotgun and a “.22
shotgun.”
2. Timothy Branham Assault
On December 26, 1991, in Mount Vernon, Missouri, 17-year-old Timothy
Branham and his brother had skateboarded to a local store and were waiting for a
nearby business to close so they could skate on its property. Defendant, standing
nearby, asked Branham if he had a problem. Branham said no. Defendant walked
up and hit Branham in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. Defendant
kicked him three or four times in the ribs. Defendant took Branham’s skateboard
but later gave it to someone, who returned it to Branham.
3. Nicholas Gari Shooting
On January 19, 1992, in Mount Vernon, Missouri, Nicholas Gari and two
friends were riding their bikes in a local park. Defendant and other boys were also
in the park, armed with BB guns. At some point, the cap Gari was wearing was
hit by a BB and he fell off his bike; Gari saw defendant standing in the woods
nearby and told defendant that he was a “cop’s son.” Defendant chased him about
19
30 feet and shot him in the neck. As defendant and his two friends ran away,
defendant proclaimed, “I blew a hole in his neck.” Gari did not know defendant.
Gari was taken to a hospital and underwent two surgeries on his throat.
The surgeon was unable to remove the BB, which had traveled to Gari’s heart.
4. Jeffrey Prewitt Assault
On January 25, 1992, Jeffrey Prewitt, a detention supervisor at the Jasper
County Juvenile Detention Center in Joplin, Missouri, was supervising three or
four juveniles, including defendant, in the day room. After defendant finished a
telephone call, he started hitting Prewitt on the top of his head and on his forehead.
Prewitt pushed defendant away. Another employee called police. Defendant
stopped fighting. Prewitt suffered knots on his head and a black eye.
5. Victim Impact Testimony of Thien Minh Ly’s Brother, Thai Ly
Thai Ly testified he had always looked up to his 24-year-old brother, Ly,
who was the oldest of three children. Ly had attended Georgetown University and
had returned to California to work with a charity organization that helped
minorities, mostly Vietnamese. When Thai heard that Ly had been murdered, he
felt dead and numb, as if he had no life going through him. Since the murder,
Thai’s life has lacked direction and inspiration.
Every day since the murder, Thai’s mother and father go to Ly’s room,
which has remained essentially untouched, and cry. Ly’s death also has been
“incredibly hard” on his sister. His death has deeply affected the lives of his
family and friends.
D. Defendant’s Penalty Phase Case
1. Sergeant Russell Hayes
In 1995, defendant and Gary Wolfgram lived with Marine Corps Sergeant
Russell Hayes and his family for one or two months. Hayes did not know
20
defendant before he moved into the house and later learned that he and Wolfgram
were not cousins, as defendant had initially represented to Hayes.
During the time defendant lived with Sergeant Hayes, he took Hayes’s
three young children to a nearby park where children of other races played.
Occasionally, a friend of Hayes’s would drop off his Japanese daughter at the
Hayes’s house. Hayes’s best friend was an African-American man who often
visited the house. Hayes was not aware of any problems between defendant and
his African-American friend. Hayes never heard defendant utter any racial slurs.
2. Drugs Found During Search of Defendant’s Apartment
During the search of a box found in defendant’s bedroom by police on the
day of defendant’s arrest, police discovered baggies of marijuana and a baggie of
methamphetamine.
3. Clinical Psychologist Roberto Flores De Apodaca
Roberto Flores De Apodaca, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, examined
defendant four days before he testified.8 He took a history from defendant and
reviewed other documents regarding defendant. Dr. De Apodaca did not believe
all of the responses defendant provided during the interview.
When Dr. De Apodaca asked defendant about his “211” tattoo, defendant
responded that he always said it meant “armed robbery” but that it actually meant
“those that lock you up shall pay.” Dr. De Apodaca understood this to mean
defendant could “harbor animosity and vengefulness toward those who incarcerate
him.”
Based on defendant’s history, Dr. De Apodaca testified defendant had a
“disorganized, tumultuous, dysfunctional” family background, with a number of
8
Defendant agreed to talk with Dr. De Apodaca only after he had been
convicted of first degree murder and the special circumstances had been found
true.
21
“losses” and “breaks in his family relationships, notably with his biological father”
when defendant was about two years old.
Defendant told Dr. De Apodaca that he had smoked marijuana, drank
alcohol, smoked cigarettes, and used methamphetamine during his adolescence.
Dr. De Apodaca testified he had reviewed reports in which defendant was referred
for treatment for substance abuse and on that basis, made a similar diagnosis.
Dr. De Apodaca diagnosed defendant with personality disorder not
otherwise specified, with components of dependency, narcissism, and antisocial
behavior, and secondarily with being polysubstance dependent. The antisocial
features included victimizing and violating the rights of others.
Dr. De Apodaca testified that he was not opining that Ly’s murder was
drug induced. Dr. De Apodaca could not “rule [] out” or “rule [] in” that
defendant suffered from brain damage. He agreed that such a determination
would require a neurological and psychological assessment.
II. GUILT PHASE ISSUES
A. Asserted Trial Court Error in Admitting Evidence of Defendant’s
Two Prior Uncharged Robberies
Before trial, the prosecution moved to admit evidence that defendant
committed the uncharged Reyes-Martinez and Tillman robberies in order to prove
that defendant intended to rob Ly during the course of murdering him. The
prosecution argued the evidence was admissible under Evidence Code section
1101, subdivision (b), because the crimes shared numerous similarities: in each of
the prior robberies, defendant had a companion to assist him in the robbery; he
robbed and assaulted the victims; he was the aggressor of the two assailants; he
attacked a vulnerable victim who was a stranger to him; the victim did not fight
back; he assaulted his victim whether or not the victim cooperated; and he had a
dual purpose to steal from and assault each victim.
22
Defense counsel argued the evidence was irrelevant, more prejudicial than
probative under Evidence Code section 352, and impermissible propensity
evidence under Evidence Code section 1101. Counsel maintained there was no
evidence Ly had been robbed, in that a key was found near his head and no other
property had been taken. The trial court overruled each of defendant’s objections
and ruled the evidence of defendant’s prior robberies and assaults admissible on
the issue of intent. The trial court also overruled counsel’s additional objections
under Evidence Code section 352 that the prior robberies were remote in time and
that defendant committed these offenses when he was a juvenile.
On appeal, defendant renews his argument that the evidence of the
uncharged robberies should have been excluded under Evidence Code section
1101, subdivision (b), because the prosecution presented no evidence that he
attempted to rob Ly during the course of murdering him, and in any event the
evidence should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative under
Evidence Code section 352. He asserts the admission of the evidence violated his
state and federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable
penalty determination.
Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) generally prohibits the
admission of evidence of a prior criminal act against a criminal defendant “when
offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion.” Subdivision (b) of
that section, however, provides that such evidence is admissible when relevant to
prove some fact in issue, such as motive, intent, knowledge, identity, or the
existence of a common design or plan.
“The admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on (1) the materiality
of the facts sought to be proved, (2) the tendency of the uncharged crimes to prove
those facts, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion of the
evidence.” (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 378-379.) Evidence may
23
be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 if its probative value is
“substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would create
substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the
jury.” (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 229.) “Because substantial
prejudice is inherent in the case of uncharged offenses, such evidence is
admissible only if it has substantial probative value.” (People v. Kelly (2007) 42
Cal.4th 763, 783.)
We have considered specific circumstances under which evidence of
uncharged crimes may be admitted under subdivision (b) of Evidence Code
section 1101. When the prosecution seeks to prove the defendant’s identity as the
perpetrator of the charged offense with evidence he had committed uncharged
offenses, the admissibility of evidence of the uncharged offenses turns on proof
that the charged and uncharged offenses share sufficient distinctive common
features to raise an inference of identity. A lesser degree of similarity is required
to establish the existence of a common plan or scheme and still less similarity is
required to establish intent. (People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 705; People
v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 402-403.) In order to be admissible to prove
intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently similar to the charged
offense to support the inference that the defendant probably acted with the same
intent in each instance. (People v. Kelly, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 783; People v.
Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 402.) The decision whether to admit other crimes
evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Kelly, supra, 42
Cal.4th at p. 783.)
By pleading not guilty, defendant placed all the elements of the murder as
well as the attempted robbery and hate-murder special-circumstances allegations
in dispute at trial. (People v. Roldan, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 705-706.) On the
issue of intent, defendant declined to stipulate that he intended to permanently
24
deprive Ly of his property. Accordingly, defendant’s intent when he murdered Ly
was a material fact.
Citing People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th 380, and People v. Guerrero
(1976) 16 Cal.3d 719, defendant first contends that because there was no
independent evidence that he attempted to rob Ly, the evidence of the uncharged
robberies was erroneously admitted on the issue of intent. In Guerrero, this court
relied on the absence of any independent evidence of actual or attempted sexual
activity between the defendant and the victim to hold that evidence of a prior rape
was inadmissible to establish that the charged murder was committed during the
course of an attempted rape, i.e., to show the defendant’s intent to engage in
sexual activity with the victim. (People v. Guerrero, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 727-
728.) “In short, the People may not conjure up an attempted rape in this instance
in order to introduce evidence of another rape.” (Id. at p. 728.) In Ewoldt, we
stated that when proving a defendant’s intent with evidence of uncharged crimes,
the act alleged is “ ‘conceded or assumed,’ ” leaving only the question of “ ‘the
state of mind that accompanied it.’ ” (People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 394,
fn. 2.) Here, defendant concedes the prosecution proved he murdered Ly but
insists there was no evidence he attempted to rob him. Not so.
“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.) “An attempted robbery
requires a specific intent to commit robbery and a direct, ineffectual act (beyond
mere preparation) toward its commission.” (People v. Medina (2007) 41 Cal.4th
685, 694.)
Defendant’s admissions in the February 23d letter to Dulaney establish he
committed acts that tended to show he attempted to rob Ly: defendant admitted he
walked up to Ly at the tennis courts and Ly “was scared”; defendant hit Ly,
25
causing him to fall to the ground; Ly told defendant that he could have whatever
he wanted but that he had only a key; defendant asked Ly if he had a car; and
when Ly said he had none, defendant put his knife to his throat and asked him
again whether he had a car. Thus, evidence of the prior robberies was logically
probative of whether, in hitting and knocking Ly to the ground and demanding to
know if Ly had a car, defendant intended to rob him.
The evidence of defendant’s involvement in the Reyes-Martinez and
Tillman robberies tends to prove this material fact. Defendant’s attack on Ly in
this case shares numerous distinctive common features with those robberies.
Defendant brought a companion to assist him in each crime: Christopher assisted
defendant in the attack on Ly, and Harp and Ellis aided defendant in the prior
robberies of Reyes-Martinez and Tillman, respectively. In each crime, defendant
assaulted his victims and was the aggressor of the two assailants: Defendant
knocked Ly to the ground before demanding to know if Ly had a car and put a
knife to Ly’s throat when he said he had none; defendant hit, chased, and kicked
Reyes-Martinez before he and Harp stole the victim’s money; and defendant
punched the elderly Tillman in the face as he and Ellis left her home after stealing
her money. Defendant did not know any of the victims. Each victim was
vulnerable (alone, elderly, or outnumbered), did not fight back, and was assaulted
whether or not he or she cooperated.
Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the trial court should have
excluded any reference that defendant assaulted Reyes-Martinez and Tillman
during the commission of the uncharged robberies because evidence of the
assaults had “virtually no probative value” on the issue of whether he killed Ly
during an attempted robbery. Because he failed to request that the trial court
sanitize the evidence of the prior uncharged robberies by excluding references to
the assaults, however, he cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal.
26
(People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 472; Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a) [a
judgment shall not be reversed because of the erroneous admission of evidence
unless there was a timely objection “so stated as to make clear the specific ground
of the objection”].)
Even were we to assume that defendant properly preserved this issue, we
would reject his contention. Defendant’s brutal acts of violence towards the
victims in the Reyes-Martinez and Tillman robberies were part and parcel of those
robberies and, as stated above, shared substantial similarities with his conduct
towards Ly in this case. Further, contrary to defendant’s protests that his act of
punching the elderly victim’s face in the Tillman robbery was gratuitous and
“unconnected” to the robbery, defendant’s admission that he punched Tillman
because he was fearful she might escape was evidence of the “force or fear”
element of the robbery. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 850 [the force
or fear element of robbery is satisfied if the perpetrator uses force to retain or
escape with the property].) Under the totality of the circumstances, evidence of
defendant’s uncharged robberies of Reyes-Martinez and Tillman, including
evidence he assaulted each victim during the commission of those crimes,
reasonably could assist the jurors in determining whether defendant assaulted Ly
in an attempt to rob him. Thus, the evidence was probative of defendant’s intent
to rob. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of these
uncharged crimes.
We also conclude the trial court acted within its discretion under Evidence
Code section 352 in finding the probative value of the evidence of the uncharged
robberies was not substantially outweighed by the potential for undue prejudice.
As explained, the evidence had substantial probative value with respect to whether
defendant intended to rob Ly at the time of the murder. The trial court instructed
the prosecutor to keep this evidence brief so that it would be neither cumulative
27
nor excessive. Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied the
prosecution’s presentation of this evidence complied with the court’s directive.
Moreover, none of the uncharged conduct was particularly inflammatory
compared to the manner in which defendant brutally murdered Ly by stomping on
his head, repeatedly stabbing him, and slicing the veins in his neck. (People v.
Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 405.) Further, the trial court’s instructions to the
jury under CALJIC No. 2.09, regarding evidence admitted for a limited purpose,
and CALJIC No. 2.50, advising it to consider such evidence not to prove
defendant’s predisposition to commit crimes but rather to determine whether the
necessary element of intent to rob was proven, eliminated any danger “of
confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” (Evid. Code, § 352.) We
presume the jury followed these instructions. (People v. Coffman and Marlow
(2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 107.)
We reject defendant’s contention that the admission of the uncharged
robberies violated his constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable
adjudication at all stages of a capital trial. We have long observed that
“[a]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence generally does not impermissibly
infringe on a capital defendant’s constitutional rights.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23
Cal.4th 978, 1035.) Defendant fails to persuade us his case presents an exception
to this general rule.
Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior crimes, reversal is not
required. Even if the other crimes evidence had been excluded, defendant’s
admissions in his February 23d letter to Dulaney, including his numerous
references to “2/11,” which defendant admitted referred to armed robbery,
provided compelling evidence defendant intended to rob Ly. (See pt. II.B, post.)
Accordingly, a result more favorable to defendant was not reasonably probable
28
absent admission of the prior crimes evidence. (People v. Welch (1999) 20
Cal.4th 701, 750; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) For the same
reasons, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Chapman v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1195.)
B. Sufficiency of Evidence of First Degree Felony Murder and the
Robbery Special Circumstance
Defendant concedes sufficient evidence establishes he murdered Ly and
intended to kill Ly from the moment “he hit him and knocked him to the ground.”
He contends, however, the evidence was insufficient to prove first degree murder
on an attempted robbery-felony-murder theory because the prosecution failed to
prove that he attempted to rob Ly. Even assuming there was sufficient evidence
he attempted to rob Ly, defendant contends the evidence was nonetheless
insufficient to support the special circumstance finding that he murdered Ly
during the attempted commission of a robbery because any intent to steal was
incidental to the murder. The insufficiency of the evidence, he claims, violated his
rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable penalty determination under the
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and sections 1, 7, 12, 15, 16 and 17 of article I of the California Constitution.
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the
judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence
that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of
fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Valdez
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 104.) When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to
support a special circumstance, the relevant inquiry is “ ‘whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the allegation beyond a reasonable
doubt.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 225, quoting People v. Mickey
29
(1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 678, fn. omitted.) We presume in support of the judgment
the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the
evidence. (People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 463.) If the circumstances
reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not
warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled
with a contrary finding. (People v. Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 104.) A
reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluates a witness’s credibility.
(People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.)
As discussed above, to be convicted of attempted robbery, the perpetrator
must harbor a specific intent to commit robbery and commit a direct but
ineffectual act toward the commission of the crime. (People v. Medina, supra, 41
Cal.4th at p. 694.) The jury may infer a defendant’s specific intent to commit a
crime from all of the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence. (See People
v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208 [“Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind
is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as
direct evidence to support a conviction”].)
Under the felony-murder rule, a murder “committed in the perpetration of,
or attempt to perpetrate” one of several enumerated felonies, including robbery, is
first degree murder. (§ 189.) The robbery-murder special circumstance applies to
a murder “committed while the defendant was engaged in . . . the commission of,
[or] attempted commission of” robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) “[T]o prove
a felony-murder special-circumstance allegation, the prosecution must show that
the defendant had an independent purpose for the commission of the felony, that
is, the commission of the felony was not merely incidental to an intended murder.”
(People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 182; see also People v. Green (1980)
27 Cal.3d 1, 61-62, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d
826, 834, fn. 3.) To prove a robbery-murder special circumstance, the prosecution
30
must prove the defendant formed the intent to steal before or while killing the
victim. (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 105.)
The prosecution theorized that defendant approached Ly and attempted to
rob him before savagely stabbing him to death because he was Vietnamese.
Relying on People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1,19, overruled on other grounds in
In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 543-544, footnote 5, and People v. Green,
supra, 27 Cal.3d at pages 52-44, defendant initially argues that, at most, a theft or
attempted theft occurred because he asked Ly, “Do you have a car?” only after he
had already knocked Ly to the ground. To be clear, “a conviction of robbery
cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence that the defendant conceived his
intent to steal either before committing the act of force against the victim, or
during the commission of that act; if the intent arose only after the use of force
against the victim, the taking will at most constitute a theft.” (People v. Morris,
supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 19, italics added, citing People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at
pp. 52-44.) Defendant’s argument fails, however, because it erroneously
presumes proof of defendant’s use of force against Ly is required to sustain the
attempted robbery-felony-murder conviction. The crime of attempted robbery
requires neither the commission of an element of robbery nor the completion of a
theft or assault. (People v. Medina, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 694; see also People v.
Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 454-455.) In any event, as discussed below,
defendant pressed his knife against Ly’s throat before he asked a second time
whether Ly had a car.
We conclude the record contains substantial evidence supporting the
finding that defendant attempted to rob Ly, the attempted robbery-felony-murder
conviction and the special circumstance finding that the murder occurred during
the commission of an attempted robbery. Defendant’s admissions in his February
23d letter to Dulaney established, in horrific detail, the circumstances of the
31
attempted robbery and murder. The letter was handwritten and addressed to
Dulaney (“Dear Bro, Ex-con 2/11, Rob”) with a large drawing of the characters
2/11, prominently appearing in the top margin. Defendant described to Dulaney
how he and Christopher approached Ly as he rollerbladed alone on the Tustin
High School tennis courts. Defendant saw that Ly “was scared” and used a ruse
whereby defendant indicated to Ly that he thought he knew Ly in order to have Ly
think “he wasn’t gona get jumped.” Defendant then hit Ly, knocking him to the
ground. Ly responded, “ ‘what the fuck’ and ‘you can have what ever I got.’ I
have nothing only a key — you can have it.’ ” (Errors in original.) Defendant
then asked Ly if he had a car and pulled out his knife. After Ly said, “No,”
defendant pressed his knife against Ly’s throat, and again asked Ly if he had a car.
Ly grabbed defendant’s hand that held the knife and looked at him. Because
defendant thought Ly was trying to get his description, defendant stomped on his
head three times and each time told Ly to stop looking at him. Defendant then
repeatedly and fatally stabbed Ly with his knife.
Ly’s body was discovered on the tennis courts the next morning. Near the
body, the police found a hat and a single key that fit the locks at Ly’s residence.
The prosecution also introduced evidence of the Reyes-Martinez and Tillman
robberies on the issue of defendant’s intent during his assault of Ly.
Based upon this evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that
defendant harbored an intent to steal Ly’s property when he knocked Ly to the
ground, demanded to know whether he had a car, and put his knife to his throat
before asking him again whether he had a car. (See People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8
Cal.4th 1060, 1129 [rejecting the defendant’s contention that the accomplice’s
“unadorned question ― ‘where do you have it?,’ ” did not reflect an intent to steal
the victims’ property].) Defendant’s own observation that Ly “was scared” before
he knocked him to the ground, and Ly’s statement to defendant that he could take
32
Ly’s (house) key before defendant first asked him whether he had a car, strongly
suggest that defendant, accompanied by Christopher, initially approached Ly in a
manner that communicated nonverbally this intent to steal. Further, defendant’s
reference to “2/11” at the top of his confessional letter to Dulaney, a term that
defendant admitted meant armed robbery, and evidence he previously assaulted
and robbed Reyes-Martinez and Tillman of their money justified the jury’s
implied finding that defendant intended to permanently deprive Ly of his property.
Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he
intended to permanently deprive Ly of his property, citing People v. Thompson
(1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 321. In Thompson, this court held evidence that the
defendant demanded and took the car belonging to the victim of the uncharged
robbery was inadmissible to prove his specific intent to steal a car from the victim
of the charged robbery. (People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 320-321.)
Because the evidence of the uncharged robbery established that the defendant
intended only to temporarily use the car, which was recovered by police shortly
after it was taken, we reasoned this evidence did not tend to prove the defendant’s
intent to permanently deprive the victim of her car in the charged robbery. (Ibid.)
Here, unlike Thompson, the evidence of the Reyes-Martinez and Tillman robberies
established that defendant intended to permanently deprive his victims of their
money. This evidence, in turn, reasonably supports an inference that defendant
intended to permanently rob Ly of his property.
Defendant further contends the evidence is insufficient to prove he
attempted to rob Ly because he did not take any property from Ly, such as his
rollerblades. To find an attempted robbery, however, the jury was not required to
find that Ly possessed or defendant took anything of value. (People v. Lee (1932)
125 Cal.App. 709, 712.) Under general attempt principles, a completed theft is
not required for attempted robbery. (People v. Medina, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p.
33
694; see also People v. Dillon, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 454-455 [proof of an
attempted crime does not require proof of an actual element of the offense
attempted].) We conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury’s implicit finding
that defendant attempted to rob Ly. (See People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at
p. 1129 [the totality of the circumstances justified the jury’s finding that an
attempted robbery and burglary occurred and that the defendant and his
accomplices acted jointly to rob the victims].)
Defendant additionally argues that, even if the record contains sufficient
evidence to support an implied finding that he attempted to rob Ly, the evidence
nonetheless was insufficient to establish that the murder was committed during the
commission of an attempted robbery. Defendant argues any attempted robbery
was incidental to the murder, that is, any intent to rob Ly was incidental to his
primary intent to kill Ly.
Defendant cites People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d 1, overruled on another
ground in In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 543-544, footnote 5, and
People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303, in support. In People v. Morris, the
victim was fatally shot at close range in a public bathhouse while wearing only
socks and shoes. The only witness to the shooting observed defendant standing in
the doorway of the restroom, facing and firing inside, and then fleeing the scene.
After the murder, the defendant attempted to use a credit card belonging to the
victim. The defendant had admitted to an acquaintance that he had “been making
money off ‘dates’ with homosexuals” and had killed one. The only reason
defendant provided for the killing was “he had to kill one.” (People v. Morris,
supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 10-11.)
We held this evidence was insufficient to sustain the robbery conviction or
the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding because the evidence was
insufficient to prove the victim had been robbed — “the record contain[ed] no
34
evidence that any personal property was in the victim’s possession at the time of
the murder.” (People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 20.) The defendant’s
admission to his acquaintance suggested he may have gone to the bathhouse to
engage in prostitution and committed murder, but it did not support a reasonable
inference that defendant committed a robbery. (Id., at pp. 21-22.) The
prosecution, therefore, failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim
was murdered during the commission of a robbery. (Id., at pp. at p. 22.)
In People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303, the defendant entered the
residence of a man and a woman and demanded money at gunpoint. The victims
produced money and jewelry, but the defendant said that he did not want them.
The defendant motioned to the victims to go downstairs, ordered them to sit, and
demanded and obtained the man’s car keys. (Id. at pp. 310-311.) The defendant
then said to the woman, “ ‘You know why I’m here and you know who sent me,’ ”
and shot the victims, killing the man. (Id. at p. 311.) The victims’ car “was never
moved and the car keys were dropped in a park” near the victims’ residence.
(Ibid.)
We held the evidence was insufficient to establish the defendant had an
intent to steal independent of his intent to kill and set aside the special
circumstance findings that the murder occurred during the commission of a
robbery and burglary. The defendant’s refusal to accept the victims’ valuables and
his statement to the victims just before shooting them showed his primary intent
was to kill them, with property gain a secondary goal. (People v. Thompson,
supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 323.) Moreover, the defendant’s demand for the victims’
car keys immediately before the shootings, viewed in context, evinced his desire
to use the car to effectuate his getaway from the shootings he intended. (Id., at
p. 324.) Because the prosecution’s evidence established “at most a suspicion” that
the defendant harbored an intent to steal independent of his intent to kill, it
35
precluded a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
committed the murder to advance an independent felonious purpose of stealing the
car keys. (Ibid.)
The present case is distinguishable from both Morris and Thompson. As
discussed above, defendant’s detailed admissions in his February 23d letter to
Dulaney established his intent to rob and kill Ly. Hence, there is no ambiguity in
the record, as in Morris, about whether an attempted robbery occurred, and ample
evidence supports the jury’s implied findings that defendant attempted to rob Ly
and killed him during the commission of that attempted robbery.
Unlike in Thompson, moreover, no evidence compelled a finding that
defendant attempted to rob Ly in order to facilitate or conceal the murder.
Defendant’s February 23d letter to Dulaney, in which he admitted he twice
demanded to know if Ly had a car and threatened Ly with a knife before he
stomped on his head and stabbed him to death, shows he intended to rob Ly but
then abandoned his plan when Ly said he had no car to steal. In addition, a
rational jury could infer that defendant harbored an intent to rob Ly independent
of his intent to kill Ly based on his multiple references to “2/11” in the February
23d letter, his admission during his police interview that “2/11” meant “armed
robbery,” Dulaney’s testimony that he and defendant used that term to mean
armed robbery, and the evidence that defendant previously had robbed Reyes-
Martinez and Tillman. The evidence therefore fully supports the conclusion that
defendant’s attempted robbery of Ly served an independent purpose and was not
merely incidental to Ly’s murder. (See People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215,
1261 [evidence that the defendant obtained the murder victim’s bank account
password before fatally strangling her supported the inference that the defendant
harbored an intent to rob the victim independent of his intent to kill her].)
36
Although not argued during closing argument by the prosecutor, an
additional basis for concluding the murder was committed during the commission
of an attempted robbery appears on the record. Defendant admitted in the
February 23d letter that while he held a knife to Ly’s throat and demanded to
know if he had a car, he became worried that Ly was trying to get a description of
him. Defendant stomped on his head, told him to stop looking at him, and then
brutally stabbed him to death. While in custody awaiting trial in this case,
defendant wrote a letter to Samantha Roby, in which he recounted that after
knocking Ly to the ground, “we waited for him to get up. When he did he layed
[sic] there, and was looking at me. I was already on the run from Mt. Vernon
shooting some people with a shot gun. So I thought he was trying to get a
discription [sic] of me, so I stomped on his head, then stabbed him over 51 times,
and slashing [sic] his neck.” Defendant did not otherwise explain his statements
about being “on the run” for shooting people, and no evidence that defendant
assaulted individuals by shooting at them was presented during the guilt phase.9
In any event, based on defendant’s concession that he killed Ly to eliminate him
as a witness and the trial court’s instruction to the jury under CALJIC No.
8.81.1710, the jury reasonably could conclude the murder was committed during
9
During the penalty phase, the prosecution presented evidence that
defendant had previously assaulted several individuals by shooting at them with
either a shotgun or BB gun. (See pt. I.C.3, ante.)
10
The trial court instructed the jury under modified CALJIC No. 8.81.17, as
follows: “To find that a special circumstance referred to in these instructions as
murder in the commission of a robbery or attempted robbery is true, it must be
proved that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the
commission of a robbery or attempted robbery. [¶] However, the special
circumstance referred to in these instructions is not established if the robbery or
attempted robbery was merely incidental to the commission of the murder. A
robbery or attempted robbery is merely incidental to a murder where there is no
purpose for the commission of the robbery or attempted robbery that is
(Footnote continued on next page.)
37
the commission of a robbery and the robbery was not merely incidental to the
murder. (See People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 46-48; People v. Gurule
(2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 628-629.)
Finally, that defendant intended both to forcibly steal from Ly and to kill
him because of his race does not alter our conclusion. “ ‘Concurrent intent to kill
and to commit an independent felony will support a felony-murder special
circumstance.’ ” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 554, quoting People v.
Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 903.) We therefore conclude substantial evidence
supports the jury’s special circumstance finding that the murder was committed
during the commission of an attempted robbery.
C. Assertedly Misleading Instruction on Evidence of Other Crimes
(CALJIC Nos. 2.50, 2.50.1, and 2.50.2)
At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the trial court instructed the jury
regarding other crimes evidence as follows: “Evidence has been introduced for
the purpose of showing that the defendant committed crimes other than that for
which he is on trial. The evidence, if believed, may not be considered by you to
prove that the defendant is a person of bad character, or that he has a disposition to
commit crimes. It may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of
determining if it tends to show: [¶] The existence of the intent which is a necessary
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
independent of the murder. [¶] For example, if the sole objective of the robbery or
attempted robbery was to facilitate an escape or avoid detection after the murder,
the robbery or attempted robbery would be merely incidental to the murder. [¶] On
the other hand, if there was an intent at the time of the murder to commit a robbery
that was not merely incidental to the murder, and the murder was committed while
the defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery or attempted robbery,
the special circumstance is established regardless of whether the defendant also
intended to kill the victim for some reason unrelated to the commission of the
robbery or attempted robbery.”
38
element of the crime charged, or a motive for the commission of the crime
charged. For the limited purpose for which you may consider this evidence, you
must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are
not permitted to consider this evidence for any other purpose.
“Within the meaning of the preceding instructions, the prosecution has the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant committed
crimes other than that for which he is on trial. You must not consider this
evidence for any purpose unless you find by a preponderance of the evidence that
a defendant committed the other crime. [¶] ‘Preponderance of the evidence’ means
evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is
so evenly balanced that you are unable to find that the evidence on either side of
an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who
had the burden of proving it. You should consider all of the evidence bearing upon
every issue regardless of who produced it.” (CALJIC Nos. 2.50, 2.50.1, and
2.50.2 (6th ed. 1996), italics added.)
Defendant contends that the italicized portions of the above instructions
rendered the instruction constitutionally infirm because it permitted the jury to
infer the existence of his intent to rob the victim based on proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that he committed two uncharged robberies as a
juvenile. As a result, he argues, the instructions as a whole reduced the
prosecution’s burden of proof in violation of his right to due process by allowing
the jury to convict him of first degree robbery murder and find true the attempted
robbery special circumstance allegation based in part on facts proven by a mere
preponderance of the evidence.11
11
The People contend defendant forfeited these claims because he failed to
challenge the instructions on these grounds at trial. Although defendant failed to
object to the instructions at trial, we nonetheless address the merits of his
(Footnote continued on next page.)
39
Defendant relies primarily on the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Gibson v. Ortiz (9th Cir. 2004) 387 F.3d 812. There, jurors were
instructed regarding propensity evidence under CALJIC No. 2.50.01 (6th ed.
1996) (Evidence of Other Sexual Offenses) in relevant part, as follows: “Evidence
has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant engaged in a
sexual offense on one or more occasions other than that charged in the case. . . .
[¶] If you find that the defendant committed a prior sexual offense, you may, but
are not required to, infer that the defendant had a disposition to commit the same
or similar type sexual offenses. If you find that the defendant had this disposition,
you may, but are not required to, infer that he was likely to commit and did
commit the crime or crimes of which he is accused. [¶] Unless you are otherwise
instructed, you must not consider this evidence for any other purpose.” (Gibson v.
Ortiz, supra, 387 F.3d at p. 817, italics added.) This instruction was followed by a
modified version of CALJIC No. 2.50.1: “Within the meaning of the preceding
instructions, the prosecution has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that a defendant committed sexual offenses and/or domestic violence
other than those for which he is on trial. [¶] You must not consider this evidence
for any purpose unless you find by a preponderance of the evidence that a
defendant committed the other sexual offenses and/or domestic violence.”
(Gibson v. Ortiz, supra, 387 F.3d at pp. 817-818.) The reasonable doubt standard
was incorporated in other instructions given to the jury, including CALJIC
No. 2.01 (Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence—Generally) and CALJIC
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
contentions because the asserted instructional errors are reviewable on appeal to
the extent they affect his substantial rights. (People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th
226, 247; § 1259.)
40
No. 2.90 (Presumption of Innocence—Reasonable Doubt—Burden of Proof).
(Gibson v. Ortiz, supra, 387 F.3d at pp. 821-823.)
Viewing the instructions as a whole, the court in Gibson held that the
interplay of the above italicized portion of CALJIC No. 2.50.01 and CALJIC
No. 2.50.1 unconstitutionally “allowed the jury to find that [the petitioner]
committed the uncharged sexual offenses by a preponderance of the evidence and
thus to infer that he had committed the charged acts based upon facts found not
beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Gibson v.
Ortiz, supra, 387 F.3d at p. 822.) The court specifically faulted the trial court for
failing to offer an “explanation harmonizing the two burdens of proof discussed in
the jury instructions.” (Id. at p. 823.) The instructional error was deemed
“structural error” requiring reversal under Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S.
275 because the jury was permitted to convict the petitioner based on a standard of
proof below beyond a reasonable doubt. (Gibson v. Ortiz, supra, 387 F.3d at
p. 825.)
Gibson is inapposite. Unlike CALJIC No. 2.50.01, given in Gibson,
CALJIC No. 2.50, as given below, expressly prohibited jurors from considering
other crimes evidence as “pro[of] that defendant is a person of bad character or
that he has a disposition to commit crimes.” Under this instruction, the jury could
consider this evidence solely to determine whether defendant had “the intent
which is a necessary element of the crime charged, or a motive for the commission
of the crime charged.” CALJIC No. 2.50 further explained that jurors had to
weigh the other crimes evidence “in the same manner as you do all other evidence
in the case” and were “not permitted to consider this evidence for any other
purpose.” That is, jurors were instructed that, regarding first degree robbery
murder, “the specific intent to commit robbery and the commission or attempted
commission of such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (CALJIC
41
No. 8.21.) The jurors were similarly instructed that the prosecution bore the
burden of proving the robbery special circumstance allegation beyond a
reasonable doubt. (CALJIC No. 8.80.1.) The trial court also gave the standard
instructions on reasonable doubt and on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
to prove guilt. (See People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 383 [rejecting a
nearly identical claim, reasoning the trial court’s standard instructions on
reasonable doubt and on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove the
necessary specific intent made clear the reasonable doubt standard applied to the
intent element].) We find no reasonable likelihood that the instructions as a whole
led the jury to believe that the prosecution was not required to prove all elements
of first degree robbery murder and the attempted robbery special circumstance
beyond a reasonable doubt. (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72; People v.
Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 417; People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663.)
This result is unaffected by the 1999 revision to CALJIC No. 2.50.1, which
added the following cautionary language: “If you find other crime[s] were
committed by a preponderance of the evidence, you are nevertheless cautioned
and reminded that before a defendant can be found guilty of any crime charged [or
any included crime] in this trial, the evidence as a whole must persuade you
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.” Nothing in
the 1999 revision to CALJIC 2.50.1 implied or suggested the omission of such
language rendered the prior version of the instruction infirm.
D. Sufficiency of Evidence of the Hate-murder Special Circumstance
Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the hate-murder
special-circumstance finding that he murdered Ly because of Ly’s race, color,
religion, nationality, or country of origin (§ 190.2, subd., (a)(16)). He asserts this
alleged insufficiency violates his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth,
42
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and sections
1, 7, 12, 15, 16, and 17 of article I of the California Constitution.
1. Applicability of the Independent Standard of Review
Preliminarily, defendant contends this Court should employ the
independent standard of review to assess whether sufficient evidence supports the
hate-murder special-circumstance finding because, assertedly, First Amendment
rights are implicated in this case.12 Defendant claims the evidence of his writings,
artwork, literature, and personal correspondence introduced by the prosecution to
prove the hate-murder special-circumstance allegation constitutes free expression
protected under the First Amendment.
In Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485, 499,
the United States Supreme Court explained that “in cases raising First Amendment
issues . . . an appellate court has an obligation to ‘make an independent
examination of the whole record’ in order to make sure that ‘the judgment does
not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.’ ” (Quoting
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 284-286.) “Independent
review is not the equivalent of de novo review ‘in which a reviewing court makes
an original appraisal of all the evidence to decide whether or not it believes’ the
outcome should have been different. (Bose, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 514, fn. 31.)
Because the trier of fact is in a superior position to observe the demeanor of
witnesses, credibility determinations are not subject to independent review, nor are
findings of fact that are not relevant to the First Amendment issue. (Id. at pp. 499-
500; Harte-Hanks [Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton (1989)] 491 U.S. [657,]
12
Respondent errs in asserting defendant forfeited this argument by failing to
raise it at trial. “In every appeal, the threshold matter to be determined is the
proper standard of review — the prism through which we view the issues
presented to us.” (Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)
43
688.) As noted above, under the substantial evidence standard, the question is
whether any rational trier of fact could find the legal elements satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt, whereas under independent review, an appellate court exercises
its independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law.”
(In re George T. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 620, 634.)
Relying on Bose, we held in In re George T., that when a plausible First
Amendment defense is raised, a reviewing court should independently review the
entire record in determining the sufficiency of evidence supporting a juvenile
court’s finding that the minor made a criminal threat within the meaning of section
422. (In re George T., supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 631-634.) We explained that
independent review of the constitutionally relevant facts is necessary in cases
involving First Amendment issues “to ensure that a speaker’s free speech rights
have not been infringed by a trier of fact’s determination that the communication
at issue constitutes a criminal threat.” (Id. at p. 632.) Independent review is
employed “precisely to make certain that what the government characterizes as
speech falling within an unprotected class actually does so.” (Id. at p. 633.)
Here, there is no such line to be drawn. California’s hate-murder special
circumstance, section 190.2, subdivision (a)(16), provides that the punishment for
first degree murder is death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of
parole when “[t]he victim was intentionally killed because of his or her race, color,
religion, nationality, or country of origin.” By its terms, this provision provides an
enhanced penalty for first degree murder committed because of prohibited bias
motivation and is not directed at free expression protected by the First
Amendment. (See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) 508 U.S. 476, 485-490
[enhancement statute is properly directed at conduct committed because of
prohibited bias motivation and does not punish free speech in violation of the First
Amendment]; In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698, 725 [section 422.7, one of
44
California’s hate crime statutes, properly sanctions bias-motivated conduct and
does not implicate a defendant’s First Amendment rights].) Accordingly, because
we conclude no First Amendment issues are implicated in this case, independent
review of the evidence supporting the hate-murder special circumstance finding is
not warranted.
2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Hate-murder Special-
circumstance Finding
Applying the deferential substantial evidence test, we review the entire
record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains
substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the essential
elements of the hate-murder special-circumstance allegation beyond a reasonable
doubt. (People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 225.) We do not reweigh
evidence or reassess a witness’s credibility. (People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th
at p. 1129.) Initially, we note that, contrary to these settled principles, defendant
views the evidence in a light unfavorable to the judgment and, in effect, urges this
court to reevaluate the credibility of certain witnesses.
Section 190.2, subdivision (a), provides that the penalty for a defendant
found guilty of first degree murder is death or imprisonment for life without
possibility of parole if the trier of fact finds one of the special circumstances
enumerated under that provision. The hate-murder special circumstance applies if
the trier of fact finds “[t]he victim was intentionally killed because of his or her
race, color, religion, nationality, or country of origin.” (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(16).)
The “because of” language in this statute is similar to the language of
sections 422.6 and 422.7, the statutes at issue in In re M.S., supra, 10 Cal.4th 698,
discussed above. We held that the phrase “ ‘because of’ means the conduct must
have been caused by the prohibited bias.” (Id. at p. 719.) “A cause is a condition
that logically must exist for a given result or consequence to occur.” (Ibid., citing
American Heritage Dict. (2d ed. 1982) p. 249.) “[T]he bias motivation must be a
45
cause in fact of the offense, whether or not other causes also exist. [Citation.]
When multiple concurrent motives exist, the prohibited bias must be a substantial
factor in bringing about the crime.” (In re M.S., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 719; see
also People v. Superior Court (Aishman) (1995) 10 Cal.4th 735, 741 [applying the
reasoning on this point from In re M.S., in interpreting similar language in section
422.75].)
In People v. Sassounian (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 361, the defendant was
convicted of the first degree murder-assassination of the Consul General of the
Republic of Turkey, and the jury found true the special circumstance allegation
that he killed the victim because of his nationality or country of origin, in violation
of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(16). (Sassounian, at p. 373.) The prosecution
primarily relied on the testimony of a jail inmate who claimed the defendant
confessed to him that he and others carried out the murder as “an act of revenge
against the Turkish people for what they had done years before to the Armenians.”
(Id. at p. 385.) On appeal, noting it could not reweigh the evidence as the
defendant urged, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s contention that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s special circumstance finding on the
ground the fellow inmate’s testimony was inherently incredible. (Id. at p. 408.)
The defendant later sought habeas corpus relief on the ground the
prosecution presented false evidence substantially material or probative on the
issue of penalty, namely, the inmate’s testimony that the defendant had confessed
to him. (In re Sassounian, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 547.) In rejecting this claim, this
court held that, even without the inmate’s testimony, overwhelming evidence —
including the defendant’s brother’s statement to police regarding the defendant’s
anti-Turkish feelings and views — supported the reasonable inference that the
defendant intentionally killed the victim because he “was Turkish and represented
Turkey.” (Id. at pp. 539, 548-549 & fn. 11.) That the defendant was motivated
46
also by the latter circumstance would not affect the special circumstance finding
because “[t]here is no requirement of an intentional killing ‘solely because of’ the
victim’s ‘nationality or country of origin’ ” (Id. at p. 549, fn. 11.)
Defendant suggests that, in order to protect free speech, we should apply
“with rigor” the substantial factor causation test set out in In re M.S. and
require that the evidence establishing that a prohibited bias was a “substantial
factor” in bringing about the murder also establish that the prohibited bias was
“unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific.” Specifically, defendant
argues that, in the context of the substantial factor analysis, the prosecution’s
evidence should establish: (1) defendant “possessed” racial bias; (2) defendant
“specifically possessed a racial bias against members of the race to which the
victim belonged”; (3) “this bias was significant in determining how [defendant]
viewed the world and led his life”; and (4) “this bias explains why [defendant]
murdered [the victim].”
Defendant’s reliance on In re M.S. for such a proposition is misplaced. In
In re M.S., we rejected a contention that section 422.6, prohibiting certain conduct,
including a threat of violence because of prohibited bias motive, was
unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment because it purportedly
failed to require that the threat be unconditional, unequivocal, and imminent. (In
re M.S., supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 711-712.) We construed section 422.6 to require
proof of a present or apparent ability to carry out the threat and a specific intent to
interfere with a person’s right protected under state or federal law. (In re M.S.,
supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 712-713.) These requirements, we reasoned, help to
safeguard against unconstitutional application to protected speech. (Ibid.)
Here, there is no similar risk of unconstitutional application of the statute
defining the hate-murder special circumstance to protected speech, as it applies
only to conduct unprotected by the First Amendment: first degree murder
47
committed because of prohibited bias motivation. (See Wisconsin v. Mitchell,
supra, 508 U.S. at pp. 484, 487.) Further, we reiterate that the First Amendment
does not prohibit evidentiary use of a defendant’s protected expression to prove
the elements of a crime. (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 489.) For
these reasons, we decline to infer any requirement that proof a prohibited bias
motivation was a “substantial factor” in causing the hate-murder special-
circumstance murder must also establish that the bias was unequivocal,
unconditional, immediate, and specific.
Here, the jury reasonably could infer from the evidence that defendant, who
is White, was a follower of the White supremacy movement and advocated racial
hatred. Sergeant Miller’s expert testimony on White supremacy beliefs and
culture and the materials police seized from defendant’s bedroom — defendant’s
Bible with references to a White supremacist leader and organization on the last
several pages, written and published White supremacy materials, the derogatory
“Martin Luther King” poster, a helmet adorned with a swastika, and a cardboard
box adorned with the Nazi “SS” lightning bolts and swastikas — reasonably
suggest defendant identified with White supremacists and was motivated to use
violence to advance their belief that the White race is superior to all other races.
He actively participated in the White supremacy movement. While in custody in
Missouri in 1993, he bragged that he was running the White Aryan Resistance
(W.A.R.) group in the prison and was using violence to support the national party.
He encouraged Dulaney to start his own group but not to associate with any
organization that did not “say violence or anything of that nature.” Defendant also
encouraged Dulaney to write to the Nationalist Party of Canada and request
literature so that he and Dulaney could start their own party when he was released
from custody. In 1995, defendant, Dulaney, and defendant’s brother formed their
own gang, the ICP, which became involved in the “White Power” movement.
48
Additional evidence showed defendant’s particular racial animus against
Asians. He admitted to Ellis that he disliked Asians, purportedly because he was
forced to leave Okinawa, and referred to Asians as “gooks.” Also, Lopez, who
worked with defendant at K-Mart, testified that within a couple months of Ly’s
murder, defendant referred to Asian customers as “gooks.”
In his February 23d letter to Dulaney, which Dulaney received
approximately one month after Ly’s murder, defendant boasted he “killed a jap
[sic].” He provided Dulaney with the details of how he brutally stabbed Ly to
death and then added that he was “having a ball in tustin wish you were here.”
During a telephone conversation with Dulaney on the day after Dulaney received
defendant’s confessional letter, defendant admitted he killed Ly “for racial
movement.” Defendant repeated that he “killed the Jap [sic],” and could not stop
stabbing him. He described Ly’s murder as giving him “ ‘a rush’ ” “ ‘like a
high.’ ”
After defendant was arrested and jailed, he bragged to Villa, a fellow
inmate, that he was in custody “for stabbing a Nip [sic] to death.” Defendant also
admitted to Villa that he told a friend “how easy it is to kill a Vietnamese and get
away with it.” In his letter to Tammy Shoopman, defendant referred to Ly as a
“Chino [who] got stabbed to Death” and bragged this earned him “a 187 . . . and
Hate crime.”
From these facts, a jury reasonably could infer that Ly was murdered
because of his race or country of origin and that Ly’s race or country of origin was
a substantial factor motivating the killing, within the meaning of section 190.2,
subdivision (a)(16). (See In re M.S., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 719; see also People
v. Sassounian, supra, 182 Cal.App.3d at p. 408.) That the evidence also supports
the jury’s additional finding that defendant murdered Ly because he wanted to
eliminate him as a witness to the attempted robbery (see pt. II.B, ante) does not
49
invalidate the hate-murder special circumstance. (See In re Sassounian, supra, 9
Cal.4th at p. 549 & fn. 11.)
Accordingly, we conclude substantial evidence supports the jury’s hate-
murder special-circumstance finding.
E. Expert Testimony on the Subject of White Supremacy
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and denied him a
fair trial by permitting Huntington Beach Police Department Sergeant Ronald
Miller to testify as an expert on the subject of White supremacy and to opine that
defendant was a White supremacist. Defendant asserts violations of his Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and the presumption of innocence
absent proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S.
358) as well as the Eighth Amendment right to a reliable adjudication in a capital
case (Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320).
1. Procedural and Factual Background
Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court conducted an Evidence
Code section 402 hearing to determine the admissibility of Sergeant Miller’s
testimony as expert testimony on the subject of White supremacy. The prosecutor
intended to call the expert to (1) identify letters written by defendant and other
material found in his possession as containing references to white supremacist
groups and espousing White supremacist beliefs, (2) identify white supremacist
groups and describe their beliefs, and (3) identify defendant as a White
supremacist. Counsel for defendant objected to the proposed testimony on the
grounds that the subject of White supremacy was within the jurors’ common
knowledge, the writings and symbols depicted in defendant’s letters and other
materials in his possession required no interpretation, and the testimony’s
prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value (Evid. Code, § 352).
50
Sergeant Miller testified at the section 402 hearing that, for over 10 years,
he had been involved with White supremacists and one of their subgroups,
“skinheads,” as a police officer assigned to the Huntington Beach Police
Department Beach Detail and Gang Unit. He had developed expertise on the
subject of White supremacy through his contacts and interviews with self-
proclaimed White supremacists and “skinheads” and his review of numerous
publications on the White supremacist movement. During the course of this work,
he became acquainted with numerous White supremacist groups that believed “the
white race is supreme over others.” Sergeant Miller had testified in court five
times on the subject of White supremacy.
The trial court overruled defendant’s objections and found Miller qualified
as an expert on the subject of “white supremacist groups and their teachings and
thinking.”
Sergeant Miller then testified before the jury that a “white supremacist” is
“a racist who is oriented toward the superiority of the white race, believing that it
is above all others. They tend to view minorities as . . . sub-humans. [¶] They are
also quite often Antisemitic, even to the point that they label the Holocaust as a
Jewish trick to garner support and sympathy for the Jews throughout the world. [¶]
Those are the two major tenets of the white supremacist.”
Miller testified that he had reviewed the handwritten notations on the last
several pages of the Bible recovered from defendant’s apartment. He recognized
the name of a White supremacy group, Church of Jesus Christ Christian, also
known as the Aryan Nations. This group is based in Hayden Lake, Idaho, and is
led by Richard Butler, who “appeals to a broad spectrum within the white
supremacist movement, including skinheads, Ku Klux Klan members.” Members
of the Aryan Nations subscribe to the “Identity Christian” belief, described by
Miller as a “pseudo religion” that uses biblical passages “to prove that white
51
people are God’s chosen, [and that] all others are what they would call mud people
or sub human.” This group believes all Jews are descendants of Satan.
Miller recognized a reference to “Brig. Gen. Jack Mohr,” whom he
identified as Brigadier General Jack Mohr, who had served as a colonel in the
United States Army during World War II and had been a prisoner of war. Miller
knew Mohr had been involved with preaching “Christian Identity” beliefs about
White supremacy to prisoners. Miller believed Mohr “would probably have no
problem with violence against minorities under the right circumstances.”
Miller recognized a notation for The Talon, a newsletter of the White
supremacist organization Euro-American Alliance, which is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. This group advocated that the White race should be “kept pure from
any inbreeding, inter-mixing between, for example, Asians and white American[s]
or black[s] and white Americans.”
Sergeant Miller examined the inside of the box seized from defendant’s
apartment and observed it was covered with multicolored “personal graffiti,”
including the Nazi swastika (two) and the Nazi “SS” lightning bolts. He explained
the “SS” lightning bolts symbol identified members of the “Stamp Shuffel [sic:
Schutzstaffel].” The “SS” referred to “the elite Nazi organization assigned by
Hitler with such missions as the extermination of the Jews, minorities, gypsies,
homosexuals, communists and others during the holocaust of World War II.”
Miller examined a letter defendant had written to Jeremie Overstreet while he was
in custody in this case and identified among its contents the Nazi “SS” lightning
bolts symbol and the phrase, “Stay White,” a reference to the belief that the White
race should be kept “pure.”
Miller next identified a piece of paper found in defendant’s Bible with the
heading “Pro White Organizations” as comprising a list of White supremacist
organizations, including (1) the Aryan Research Fellowship, based in Conquville,
52
Oregon, and identified by the United States Department of Justice as a white
supremacist organization; (2) the N.A.A.W.P., or National Association for the
Advancement of White People, based in New Orleans, Louisiana, and formed by
former Ku Klux Klan (KKK) imperial wizard David Duke “to protect white
people’s rights”; (3) the New Order, based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and
successor to the American Nazi Party; this group views Adolf Hitler as “the
Messiah for the Aryan or White race” and formerly was known as the National
Socialist White People’s Party; (4) The Klansman, a group associated with the
KKK; (5) the White Aryan Resistance, based in Fallbrook, California, and led by
White supremacist Tom Metzger, whom Miller described as “oriented toward
violence”; (6) the White Knights, a “KKK-oriented” organization, based in
Birmingham, Alabama; and (7) the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a larger faction
of the KKK, led by Thom Robb, whom Miller described as a White supremacist
and Christian Identity preacher.
Miller elaborated that, with the exception of skinheads, he had the most
contact with Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance, an organization “very
violent in [its] orientation.” The White Aryan Resistance published a newsletter
that “regularly feature[d] both articles [and] illustrations backing up [Metzger’s]
white supremacist views.” One such featured illustration depicted “a white man
with a double-barrel shotgun blasting a minority with a couple of rounds” with a
caption stating, “If it isn’t white, waste it.” As for this organization’s leader,
Metzger advocated “white supremacy” over Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and all
minorities. He maintained a Web site, and previously a computer bulletin board,
that promoted his and the organization’s “hate views.” Earlier, Metzger had
produced a cable access television program called Race and Reason that provided
a forum for white supremacists to appear as guests and discuss their common
53
beliefs about white supremacy. After Metzger began recruiting skinheads, the
latter produced their own cable access program called Skinhead Race and Reason.
Sergeant Miller then examined portions of three letters defendant had
written to Robert Dulaney over a year before the murder in this case. In a letter
dated March 10, 1993, when defendant was incarcerated in Missouri, he wrote, “I
run the W.A.R. group in here. White Arian resistance is a action group – were a
branch of NVAP – National Vastal Arian Party they dictate we react in other
words they talk – we back them with violence.” (Errors in original.) Miller
explained that the phrase “W.A.R. group” referred to the “White Aryan
Resistance” and interpreted defendant’s written statement as meaning that when
the N.V.A.P. “talks,” defendant’s White Aryan Resistance group backs them up
with violence.
In a letter postmarked October 12, 1993, defendant wrote, “Don’t worry
dog, I love to play in the WaR zone . . . .” Miller understood “WaR” as referring
to the White Aryan Resistance supremacist organization. In another letter
postmarked February 14, 1994, defendant wrote the word “Kill” in large block
letters near the closing. The letter “K” resembled a Nazi swastika. Below this,
defendant repeated the word “kill” seven times in lower case letters.
Sergeant Miller examined a photograph of the helmet and plastic skull
found in defendant’s bedroom and identified the helmet as a World War II Nazi
military helmet or a replica. A Nazi swastika symbol appeared on the front of the
helmet.
Based on defendant’s own words in his letters, the groups with whom
defendant associated, and his use of the symbols associated with the “Nazi white
supremacist types of beliefs,” including the Nazi swastika and “SS” lightning bolts
symbols, Miller believed defendant was a White supremacist. Among the letters
Miller considered were two letters written by defendant while in custody awaiting
54
trial in this case. One was addressed to Kelly Dresen, in which defendant stated,
“I am 100 percent against black.” In another letter addressed to Jeremie
Overstreet, defendant drew two lightning bolts next to the phrase, “stay white,”
and wrote on a separate page, “No better not them hong kong fuee’s might not like
you!” (Errors in originals.)
2. Discussion
On appeal, defendant first claims the trial court erred by allowing Sergeant
Miller to testify that written and printed material found in defendant’s bedroom,
including letters written by defendant before and after Ly’s murder, referred to
White supremacist organizations and espoused White supremacist beliefs.
Defendant asserts that Miller’s testimony should have been restricted to
identifying the organizations listed in defendant’s Bible or on the “Pro White
Organizations” list, and that jurors were capable of recognizing and understanding
any White supremacist references or overtones in the writings and printed
material.
A trial court’s decision to admit expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1222.) We conclude for the
reasons discussed below that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting this testimony.
First, although expert testimony is generally inadmissible on topics “so
common” that jurors of ordinary knowledge and education could reach a
conclusion as intelligently as the expert, an expert may testify on a subject about
which jurors are not completely ignorant. (People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at
p. 1222, citing People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 367 (overruled on
another ground in People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 914).) In
determining the admissibility of expert testimony, “the pertinent question is
whether, even if jurors have some knowledge of the subject matter, expert opinion
55
testimony would assist the jury.” (People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1222;
Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a).)
Here, the challenged evidence was relevant to establish defendant’s state of
mind at the time he killed Ly and whether defendant killed Ly because of his
“race, color, religion, nationality, or country of origin.” (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(16).)
Although some jurors may have possessed general knowledge of the subject of
White supremacy, Miller’s testimony nonetheless explained in some detail that a
White supremacist is a racist who believes the White race is superior to all other
races and is anti-Semitic, “label[ing] the Holocaust as a Jewish trick to garner
support and sympathy for the Jews throughout the world.” Without the benefit of
the expert’s testimony, the jurors might not have understood that symbols often
associated with Nazis that adorned some of the items found in defendant’s
bedroom (e.g., the Nazi swastikas and the “SS” lightning bolts on defendant’s
box) and phrases that were contained in defendant’s letters and other written
material (e.g., “Pure White Organizations,” “Stay White,” “I run the W.A.R.”)
were used by white supremacists to advocate their beliefs. Nor would the jurors
likely have recognized the names of the white supremacist leaders (e.g., Brigadier
General Jack Mohr) and organizations (Church of Jesus Christ Christian, also
known as the Aryan Nations) noted in the materials seized. Sergeant Miller’s
testimony could assist jurors by providing them with a basis of information about
white supremacist beliefs and tenets from which they could determine, based on
the material seized from defendant’s bedroom, that defendant subscribed to white
supremacist beliefs and tenets.
Ultimately, this evidence could assist the jury in determining defendant’s
motive for killing Ly. Thus, the expert’s testimony demonstrated more than
defendant’s abstract beliefs about White supremacy and was relevant to the jury’s
determination of whether the prosecution proved the hate-murder special
56
circumstance. (Cf. Dawson v. Delaware (1992) 503 U.S. 159, 164-165 [evidence
of defendant’s membership in Aryan Brotherhood that was not linked to the crime
committed and revealed only the defendant’s abstract beliefs was irrelevant to his
capital sentencing hearing].) Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude
Sergeant Miller’s testimony was of no assistance to the jurors (Evid. Code, § 801,
subd. (a)), or would contribute nothing to the jury’s common fund of information.
(People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 163.)
A second basis for upholding the trial court’s decision admitting Miller’s
testimony on white supremacy culture and beliefs is that we have admitted expert
testimony in analogous circumstances. (See, e.g., People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38
Cal.4th 932, 944-949 [approving the admission of expert testimony regarding
gang culture and witness intimidation by gang members]; People v. Ochoa (2001)
26 Cal.4th 398, 438 [approving the admission of expert testimony to explain the
significance of the defendant’s gang-related tattoos]; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14
Cal.4th 605, 617 [recognizing that “[t]he subject matter of the culture and habits of
criminal street gangs” satisfies the criterion of admissible expert testimony under
Evidence Code section 801]; People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 922
[approving admission of juvenile gangs expert’s testimony on defendants’ gang
membership as relevant to establish their identities as perpetrators of the charged
offenses]; see also People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1370 [“The use
of expert testimony in the area of gang sociology and psychology is well
established”].)
Numerous decisions in federal and other state cases also have upheld the
admission of expert testimony to explain the culture and beliefs of White
supremacy groups and gangs and to interpret tattoos, symbols, and graffiti
associated with these groups when such evidence was relevant to the issues at trial.
(See U.S. v. Sparks (8th Cir. 1991) 949 F.2d 1023, 1025-1026 [expert testimony
57
explaining the meaning of gang graffiti and hand signs depicted in the
photographs seized from house in which the defendant was arrested was properly
admitted and relevant to establish the defendant’s gang affiliation and for
impeachment]; U.S. v. Skillman (9th Cir. 1990) 922 F.2d 1370, 1374 & fn. 4
[expert testimony describing “skinheads” as “ ‘a neo-Nazi type of group . . . [that]
espouse racial purity and white power, and . . . tend to be violent’ ” was properly
admitted because it tended to establish the defendant’s “racial animus,” an element
of the charged offense, intimidating or interfering with a person’s housing rights
because of race or color]; U.S. v. Mills (11th Cir. 1983) 704 F.2d 1553, 1559-1560
[the trial court properly admitted the testimony of a “quasi expert” on the
organization, history, and activities of the Aryan Brotherhood, a White
supremacist prison gang, as relevant to the defendant’s motive and the
circumstances of the alleged AB contract killing]; People v. Skinner (Colo. App.
2002) 53 P.3d 720, 722, 724 [the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting expert testimony to explain that the defendant’s tattoo could be viewed
as a symbol of white supremacy beliefs]; People v. Wagner (N.Y.App.Div. 2006)
27 A.D.3d 671, 672, 811 N.Y.S.2d 125,126-127 [the trial court properly permitted
an expert on hate crimes and the meaning of tattoos to testify with respect to the
defendant’s white supremacist tattoos; the tattoos were relevant to the defendant’s
motive and intent to commit second degree aggravated harassment]; Mason v.
State (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) 905 S.W.2d 570, 577 [a prison gang expert’s
testimony that the Aryan Brotherhood is a White supremacist organization that,
among other things, recruits White inmates and engages in contract killings and
assaultive behavior was properly admitted as relevant to the issue of the
defendant’s future dangerousness]; State v. Campbell (Wn.Ct.App. 1995) 78
Wn.App. 813, 823 [901 P.2d 1050, 1055-1056] [the trial court properly admitted
the expert gang testimony to explain gang terminology, gang symbols, and the
58
organizational structure and history of gangs as relevant to show the defendant’s
premeditation, intent, and motive to commit the murders].)
In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that evidence of
racial intolerance and subversive advocacy may properly be considered in a capital
sentencing proceeding when such evidence is relevant to the issues involved.
(Dawson v. Delaware, supra, 503 U.S. at p. 164.) The high court suggested that
such evidence properly could be adduced by expert testimony. (Id. at pp. 165,
168.)
Defendant claims that Sergeant Miller’s testimony that White supremacists
“are also quite often Anti-semitic, even to the point that they label the Holocaust
as a Jewish trick to garner support and sympathy for the Jews throughout the
world” was irrelevant and inadmissible because, he asserts, Ly was not Jewish. As
a preliminary matter, we agree with respondent that defendant forfeited this claim
because, although defendant objected to the admission of the expert’s testimony as
a whole, he failed to object specifically on the ground he now advances and
thereby deprived the trial court an opportunity to make a fully informed ruling on
the issue. (Evid. Code, § 353; see, e.g., People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555,
609-611 [the defendant’s broad pretrial objection to the admissibility of DNA
evidence did not preserve for appeal his specific claim that the trial court
erroneously permitted the DNA expert to testify to the frequency of the genetic
profile among only a single racial group rather than for two additional major racial
and ethic groups for which DNA databases existed].) In any event, defendant’s
contention is without merit.
Sergeant Miller described the White supremacists’ two tenets as their belief
in the superiority of the White race above all other races and their particular hatred
of Jews, who they believe fabricated the Holocaust to garner worldwide sympathy
and support. The expert’s comments regarding the White supremacists’ hatred
59
towards Jews were relevant to explain these tenets and their origins and to provide
the jurors with a basis of information for understanding certain symbols found in
defendant’s bedroom (e.g., the “SS” lightning bolts) and determining whether
defendant’s murder of Ly was motivated by racial hatred. Whether or not Ly was
Jewish, these comments were relevant on the general subject of White supremacy.
Defendant’s complaint concerns the weight of this portion of Miller’s testimony,
not its admissibility.
Defendant also claims that Sergeant Miller’s testimony regarding Tom
Metzger, whom Miller identified as the leader of the White Aryan Resistance, was
irrelevant because Metzger was not on trial. According to Miller, however, the
“Pro White Organizations” list found in defendant’s Bible contained the name
“White Aryan Resistance,” the “very violent” organization led by Metzger.
Defendant also referred to the White Aryan Resistance in letters he had written to
Delaney over one year before he killed Ly. In any event, the expert’s remarks
concerning Metzger gave the jurors an overview of White supremacy culture and
beliefs in order to place in context the White supremacist references found in the
seized material. This concern, too, affects the weight of this evidence, not its
admissibility.
Next, defendant claims the trial court erred in permitting Sergeant Miller to
give his opinion that defendant was a White supremacist, an issue properly
reserved to the trier of fact. He asserts the expert was less informed than the jurors
on this point because they could also consider additional relevant evidence on this
point, including the testimony of other witnesses.
Evidence Code section 805 provides that “[t]estimony in the form of an
opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the
ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” (See People v. Prince, supra, 40
Cal.4th at pp. 1226-1227 [an expert on crime scene analysis and “signature
60
crimes” testified that all six murders were committed by the same person].) We
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Sergeant Miller’s
opinion that defendant was a White supremacist would be of assistance to the jury
in evaluating the evidence and determining whether the prosecution had proved
the charged offenses and the truth of special circumstance allegations. The expert
stated no opinion as to defendant’s guilt or the truth of the special circumstances.
His opinion that defendant was a White supremacist did not bind the jurors on this
point or preclude them from considering other relevant evidence. The trial court
instructed the jurors that they were the “sole judges” of the credibility of a witness
(CALJIC No. 2.20), that they should consider all the evidence on which the proof
of any fact depends (CALJIC No. 2.27), and that they were free to determine the
weight, if any, to accord an expert’s opinion upon considering the basis for the
opinion (CALJIC No. 2.80).
Defendant additionally contends that the probative value of Sergeant
Miller’s testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial effect (Evid. Code., § 352)
and that its admission rendered his trial unfair in violation of his right to due
process. He asserts the expert’s opinion that he was a White supremacist unfairly
poisoned the jury against him because it depicted him as an anti-Semite who
wanted to exterminate Jews, minorities, homosexuals, and gypsies. This opinion,
he claims, also equated him with Adolph Hitler and “the worst excesses of the
Nazi regime.” Defendant further complains that the expert’s description of a
photograph of “a white man with a double-barrel shotgun blasting a minority with
a couple of rounds” in a White Aryan Resistance publication was prejudicial.
Evidence Code section 352 permits a trial court in its discretion to exclude
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that
its admission would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. We review a
trial court’s decision whether to exclude evidence pursuant to Evidence Code
61
section 352 for abuse of discretion. (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 959.)
For this purpose, “ ‘prejudicial’ means uniquely inflammatory without regard to
relevance.” (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1138.) “Evidence is
substantially more prejudicial than probative [citation] if . . . it poses an intolerable
‘risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome’ [citation].”
(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724.)
Here, the admission of Sergeant Miller’s testimony was probative of
defendant’s motive and intent in committing the murder and, thus, was directly
relevant to the jury’s determination of the murder charge and hate-murder special-
circumstance allegation. We do not view as prejudicial either the expert’s general
overview of the subject of White supremacy or his specific testimony that White
supremacists harbor a particular hatred of Jews, associate with Nazis and use
Nazi-related symbols (e.g., “SS” lightning bolts and swastika) to promote their
racist beliefs, and regularly feature racist illustrations in their publications (e.g.,
the depiction of a White man “blasting a minority” with a double-barrel shotgun).
As defendant has argued, many of the items found in defendant’s bedroom and the
letters confiscated while he was in jail awaiting trial themselves clearly conveyed
messages of racial hatred and anti-Semitism. For example, jurors reasonably
could find defendant harbored a hatred of Blacks and Jews based on evidence he
displayed in his bedroom the racist “Martin Luther King” poster, possessed an
actual or replica of a Nazi helmet with a swastika symbol across the front, and
penned a letter to Dulaney before Ly’s death that contained a swastika above the
words “kill-kill-kill-kill-kill-kill-kill” followed by “Them all!” Evidence is not
unduly prejudicial “merely because it strongly implicates a defendant and casts
him or her in a bad light.” (People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592, 632.) The
trial court properly instructed the jury not to be influenced by passion, sympathy,
or prejudice and to conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence in applying
62
the law. Under these circumstances, where other, properly admitted evidence
plainly communicated to the jury defendant’s odious attitudes, the trial court
properly found the probative value of the expert’s testimony was not substantially
outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Finally, assuming without deciding that defendant’s additional
constitutional claims were preserved (see People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428,
433-434), they are without merit for the same reasons we have rejected
defendant’s state-law claims. (See People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1229;
People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1035.)
III. PENALTY PHASE
A. CALJIC No. 8.85
Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 8.85,13 which describes the
13
The trial court instructed the jury in the language of CALJIC No. 8.85, in
relevant part, as follows: “In determining which penalty is to be imposed on
defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg, you shall consider all of the evidence which has
been received during any part of the trial in this case, except as you may [be]
hereafter instructed. You shall consider, take into account the following factors, if
applicable: [¶] . . . [¶] D, Whether or not the offense was committed while the
defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg was under the influence of extreme mental or
emotional disturbance. [¶] E, Whether or not the victim was a participant in
defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg’s homicidal conduct or consented to the homicidal
act. [¶] F, Whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which
defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg reasonably believed to be a moral justification or
extenuation for his conduct. [¶] G, Whether or not defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg
acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.
[¶] H, Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of defendant Gunner
Jay Lindberg to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his
conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or
defense or the effects of intoxication. [¶] . . . [¶] J, Whether or not defendant
Gunner Jay Lindberg was a [sic] an accomplice to the offense and his participation
in the commission of the offense was relatively minor. [¶] K, Any other
circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime, even though it is not a
legal excuse for the crime and any sympathetic or other aspect of defendant
Gunner Jay Lindberg’s character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a
(Footnote continued on next page.)
63
aggravating and mitigating factors the jury may consider in determining penalty, is
constitutionally flawed because (1) the instruction fails to inform the jury which
factors are mitigating and which factors are aggravating, and (2) the use of the
modifiers “extreme” and “substantial” in the instruction acts as a barrier to the
jury’s consideration of mitigation.14 We previously have rejected these
challenges. (People v. Ramirez, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 469 [“instructions in the
language of CALJIC No. 8.85 do not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments by failing to delete inapplicable sentencing factors or delineate
between aggravating and mitigating circumstances”]; People v. Perry (2006) 38
Cal.4th 302, 319 [the terms “extreme” and “substantial” do not unconstitutionally
limit the mitigating factors the jury may consider]; see also People v. San Nicolas
(2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 675-676 [CALJIC No. 8.85 does not preclude jurors from
considering lesser mental or emotional disturbance as a mitigating factor in
violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments].) Defendant
offers no persuasive reason to reconsider our prior decisions.
B. CALJIC No. 8.88
Defendant contends various aspects of CALJIC No. 8.8815 violated his
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on
trial. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or
innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle.”
14
Defendant asserts the trial court’s instruction under CALJIC No. 8.85
“infringed [defendant’s] rights under the Eighth Amendment, as well as state law”
but fails to identify the state law this instruction violates and provides no argument
or authority in support. A matter asserted in a such a perfunctory manner is not
properly raised. (People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1214, fn. 11.)
15
The trial court instructed the jury in the language of CALJIC No. 8.88, in
relevant part, as follows: “It is now your duty to determine which of the two
penalties, death or confinement in the state prison for life without possibility of
parole shall be imposed upon the defendant Gunner Jay Lindberg. [¶] After having
(Footnote continued on next page.)
64
rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal
Constitution and corresponding provisions of the California Constitution. As
defendant concedes, we previously have considered and rejected each of these
arguments, and do so again now as defendant offers no persuasive reason to
reconsider our prior decisions. We thus hold that CALJIC No. 8.88: (1) is not
unconstitutional for failing to advise the jury that if the mitigating circumstances
outweigh those in aggravation, it is required to return a sentence of life without the
possibility of parole (People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 619); (2) is not
unconstitutional for failing to inform the jury that it may return a sentence of life
without the possibility of parole even in the absence of mitigating evidence
(People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 43); (3) is not unconstitutionally vague in
using the “so substantial” standard for comparing mitigating and aggravating
(Footnote continued from previous page.)
heard all of the evidence, and after having heard and considered the arguments of
counsel, you shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the applicable
factors of aggravating and mitigating circumstances upon which you have been
instructed. [¶] An aggravating factor is any fact, condition or event attending the
commission of a crime which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious
consequences which is above and beyond the elements of the crime itself. A
mitigating circumstance is any fact, condition, or event which does not constitute a
justification or excuse for the crime in question, but may be considered as an
extenuating circumstance in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.
[¶] The weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a
mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the
arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them. You are free to assign whatever
moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various
factors you are permitted to consider. In weighing the various circumstances you
determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate
by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances, with the totality of
the mitigating circumstances. [¶] To return a judgment of death, each of you must
be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison
with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without
parole.”
65
circumstances (People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 619); and (4) is not
unconstitutional because it requires the jury to decide whether the death penalty is
“warranted” rather than “appropriate” (People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109,
137).
Defendant further contends that, as applied in this case, CALJIC No. 8.88
misled the jury about its discretion to impose a sentence of life without possibility
of parole, even if it determined the circumstances in aggravation outweighed those
in mitigation or found no mitigation whatsoever. In support, he relies on a letter
purportedly written by two jurors that was filed on October 16, 1997, after the jury
returned its death verdict and before defendant was sentenced. This letter was not
admitted into evidence at any proceeding. The circumstances under which it was
filed, and by which party, if any, do not appear on the record. There is also
nothing in the record to indicate the letter had been authenticated. (See
Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 525 [generally, a document
must be authenticated in some manner before it is admissible in evidence]; Evid.
Code, §§ 1400, 1401.) In any event, the portions of the letter on which defendant
relies describe the mental processes by which these jurors, and purportedly other
jurors, reached the penalty verdict. Thus, even if the letter had been properly
authenticated and admitted into evidence (e.g., at a hearing on defendant’s motion
for a new trial) we are precluded from considering such evidence on appeal.
“ ‘[A] verdict may not be impeached by inquiry into the juror’s mental or
subjective reasoning processes, and evidence of what the juror ‘felt’ or how he
understood the trial court’s instructions is not competent.’ ” (People v. Morris
(1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 231, quoting People v. Sutter (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 806,
819; accord, People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1261; Evid. Code, § 1150,
subd. (a).)
66
C. Instruction on the Meaning of a Sentence of Life Without
Possibility of Parole
Defendant contends the trial court was required to instruct the jury that a
sentence of life without the possibility of parole meant that defendant would never
be considered for parole. He acknowledges this court previously has rejected this
argument (see People v. Cox, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 967), but asks that we
reconsider these decisions in light of Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) 512 U.S.
154, Shafer v. South Carolina (2001) 532 U.S. 36, and Kelly v. South Carolina
(2002) 534 U.S. 246. We have considered the impact of these decisions by the
high court in rejecting this argument. (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309,
352-355; People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 635-636; People v. Prieto, supra,
30 Cal.4th at pp. 269-271.) Defendant offers no persuasive reason to revisit our
prior decisions.
D. Miscellaneous Constitutional Challenges to California’s Death
Penalty Statute
Defendant contends California’s death penalty law is unconstitutional on
several grounds. We have previously rejected these arguments, and defendant
fails to persuade us to reconsider our prior decisions.
California’s death penalty scheme adequately narrows the class of death-
eligible offenders. (People v. San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 676.)
California’s use of capital punishment as an assertedly “regular form of
punishment” for substantial numbers of crimes, rather than as an extraordinary
punishment for extraordinary crimes, does not offend the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments by violating international norms of human decency. (People v.
Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1430.)
Neither the federal nor state Constitution requires intercase proportionality
review for death penalty cases. (People v. Williams (2006) 40 Cal.4th 287, 338;
see Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37, 50-51.)
67
E. International Law
Defendant contends that California’s death penalty scheme and his
individual death sentence violate article VII of the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
by violating “international human rights norms” and “evolving standards of
decency.”
We have consistently rejected this claim. (People v. Geier, supra, 41
Cal.4th at p. 620; People v. Leonard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1430; People v.
Ramirez, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 479; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 500-
501; People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 511; People v. Ghent (1987) 43
Cal.3d 739, 778-779.) Defendant fails to persuade us to reconsider these
decisions.
F. Cumulative Error
Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the guilt and penalty
phase errors requires reversal of his conviction and death sentence even if no
single error compels reversal. Because we have either rejected on the merits
defendant’s claims of error or have found any assumed errors to be nonprejudicial,
we reject his contention. We likewise reject defendant’s contention with respect
to the cumulative effect of any assumed errors.
68
IV. CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORENO, J.
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J.
BAXTER,
J.
WERDEGAR,
J.
CHIN,
J.
CORRIGAN,
J.
69
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY KENNARD, J.
On the morning of January 29, 1996, the body of Thien Minh Ly was found
on a high school tennis court. Ly, who was Vietnamese, had been stabbed
repeatedly, 14 of the wounds entering his heart. About a month later, defendant
confessed to stabbing “a jap” to death, saying the killing was “for racial movement
[sic].” After his arrest, two lists of names and addresses of White supremacist
groups, together with printed materials issued by or describing these groups, were
found in defendant’s bedroom. Defendant was charged with Ly’s murder, and
with two special circumstance allegations: (1) the crime was committed in the
course of an attempted robbery (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)),1 and (2)
the victim was “intentionally killed because of” his “race, color, religion,
nationality, or country of origin” (id., subd. (a)(16)).
Police Sergeant Ronald Miller, the prosecution’s expert witness on White
supremacy groups, testified at the guilt phase of defendant’s trial that some of the
groups in which defendant had expressed interest were anti-Semitic. He described
defendant as “definitely” being a White supremacist. On cross-examination,
Miller acknowledged that he had never talked to defendant and did not know
1
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
whether defendant belonged to any of the White supremacist organizations about
which Miller had testified.
The jury found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Ly; and it
found true both special circumstance allegations. The jury returned a verdict of
death. The majority affirms the judgment. I concur in the affirmance.
Unlike the majority, however, I am of the view that Sergeant Miller’s
testimony about the anti-Semitic beliefs of some White supremacist groups was
irrelevant in this case and therefore should not have been admitted. Nonetheless,
defendant was not prejudiced, as I explain below.
I
Over defense objection, Sergeant Miller testified at trial to two of the major
tenets of White supremacy groups: first, a belief in the “superiority of the White
race” and a corresponding bias against all others; second, anti-Semitism so
extreme that White supremacists “label the Holocaust as a Jewish trick to garner
support and sympathy for the Jews throughout the world.” Responding to the
prosecutor’s question about an organization called Church of Jesus Christ
Christian, which appeared in a handwritten list of groups that was entered in
defendant’s Bible, Miller described that church’s beliefs as “pseudo religion,”
mentioning its belief that “all Jews are the descendants of Satan.” In Miller’s
opinion, the church’s beliefs “fold[] right into the anti[-S]emitic” views common
among White supremacists.
Examining a hand-decorated box found in defendant’s bedroom, Sergeant
Miller identified Nazi swastikas and the paired-lightning-bolt insignia of the
World War II German army’s elite SS corps, which Miller explained had been
ordered by Adolf Hitler to exterminate “Jews, minorities, gypsies, homosexuals,
and communists.”
2
The police found in defendant’s bedroom a letter to defendant from
Brigadier General Jack Mohr. In his testimony, Sergeant Miller identified Mohr
as a White supremacist leader. Also found in defendant’s bedroom, and
introduced into evidence by the prosecution, was a copy of a letter from Mohr to
the Reverend Jerry Falwell. The prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury,
explained that in this letter Mohr castigated Falwell for being “too nice to the
Jews.”
At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the trial court instructed the jury that in
order to find the hate-murder special circumstance allegation true it must find that
“[t]he victim was intentionally killed and . . . the murder was committed because
of race, religion, nationality or country of origin of the victim.” To prove that a
crime was committed “because of” a victim’s protected characteristic, there must
be evidence of a causal connection between a defendant’s perception of the
protected group to which the victim belongs and the defendant’s infliction of
injury on that victim. (See In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698, 717 [construing
analogous language in section 422.6 and former section 422.7].)
Although Sergeant Miller here testified regarding the anti-Semitic views
held by the Nazis and by various White supremacy groups in which defendant had
shown considerable interest, there was no evidence, as the Attorney General
acknowledged at oral argument, that defendant had ever expressed anti-Semitic
views, and there was no evidence that defendant killed Ly, a Vietnamese man,
because defendant perceived him to be of the Jewish faith. Thus, Sergeant
Miller’s testimony on the anti-Semitic views of some White supremacists lacked
any relevance to the hate-murder special circumstance allegation pertaining to
Ly’s murder and should not have been admitted into evidence.
According to the majority, Miller’s testimony about anti-Semitism was
relevant to “the general subject of White supremacy.” (Maj. opn. at p. 60.) If
3
Miller’s testimony about White supremacist groups had been solely focused on
their belief in the superiority of Whites over all other racial and ethnic groups, I
would agree that the testimony was relevant. But I am not persuaded that Miller’s
testimony regarding White supremacist groups’ hatred of Jews establishes hatred
of other nonwhite groups, and therefore Miller’s specific testimony about anti-
Semitism was irrelevant in this case, where the evidence shows that defendant
killed Ly because of his race or country of origin. (See In re M.S., supra, 10
Cal.4th at pp. 730-731 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).)
II
Although the trial court erred by admitting Sergeant Miller’s testimony
about the anti-Semitism of some White supremacist groups, the error was
harmless, as discussed below.
Because the evidence showed that defendant was an admirer of White
supremacist groups, Sergeant Miller’s testimony that many such groups are anti-
Semitic may have caused the jury to infer that defendant had similar views.
Although evidence tending to show that a defendant was anti-Semitic could be
highly prejudicial in another case, here the evidence overwhelmingly showed that
defendant was a racist who regarded non-Whites as subhuman and who, by his
own admission, callously murdered victim Ly “for racial movement” because
defendant thought Ly was a “jap” or a “Chino.” Given the compelling evidence
that Ly’s murder was a racially motivated hate crime, the trial court’s erroneous
admission of Miller’s testimony that some White supremacist groups were anti-
Semitic was harmless under any standard of prejudice and could not have affected
the outcome of either the guilt or the penalty phase of defendant’s trial.
KENNARD,
J.
4
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion People v. Lindberg
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal XXX
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S066527
Date Filed: August 28, 2008
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court: Superior
County: Orange
Judge: Robert R. Fitzgerald
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Ronald F. Turner,
Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda L. Cartwirght-Ladendorf and Adrianne S.
Denault, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Ronald F. Turner
Deputy State Public Defender
801 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-2676
Adrianne S. Denault
Deputy Attorney General
110 West “A” Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 645-2106
Automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
Opinion Information
| Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: | Cross Referenced Cases: |
| Thu, 08/28/2008 | 45 Cal. 4th 1, 190 P.3d 664, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323 | S066527 | Automatic Appeal | closed; remittitur issued | LINDBERG (GUNNER JAY) ON H.C. (S173896) |
Parties
| 1 | The People (Respondent) Represented by Attorney General - San Diego Office Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf, Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA |
| 2 | The People (Respondent) Represented by Adrianne Simone Denault Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA |
| 3 | Lindberg, Gunner Jay (Appellant) San Quentin State Prison Represented by Ronald F. Turner Attorney at Law 5050 Laguna Blvd., Suite 112, PMB 322 Elk Grove, CA |
| Disposition | |
| Aug 28 2008 | Opinion: Affirmed |
| Dockets | |
| Dec 12 1997 | Judgment of death |
| Dec 15 1997 | Filed certified copy of Judgment of Death Rendered 12-12-97. |
| Dec 15 1997 | Penal Code sections 190.6 et seq. apply to this case |
| Jun 30 1998 | Record certified for completeness |
| May 28 2002 | Filed: applt's application for appointment of counsel.. (IFP form) |
| May 29 2002 | Order appointing State Public Defender filed to represent appellant for the direct appeal. |
| Jul 1 2002 | Date trial court delivered record to appellant's counsel (3,098 pp. record) (see Calif. Rules of Court, rule 39.50(c); the date of delivery is the date of mailing plus five days.) (Note: record was transmitted on 6-25-2002.) |
| Jul 1 2002 | Received: notice from superior court of transmittal of 3,098 pp. record to appellant's counsel on 6-25-2002. |
| Jul 2 2002 | Appellant's opening brief letter sent, due: January 27, 2003. |
| Jul 30 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Oct 1 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Dec 4 2002 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Jan 23 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (1st request) |
| Jan 24 2003 | Extension of time granted to 3/28/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticiaptes that after that date, only five further extensions totaling 300 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet this schedule. |
| Feb 3 2003 | Received copy of appellant's record correction motion Appellant's Request for Correction and Completion of Record. (18 pp.) |
| Feb 4 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Mar 19 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (2nd request) |
| Mar 25 2003 | Extension of time granted to 5/27/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. After that date, only four further extensions totaling about 240 additional days are contemplated. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticiaptes filing that brief by 1/31/2004. |
| Apr 4 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| May 22 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (3rd request) |
| May 28 2003 | Extension of time granted to 7/28/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only three further extensions totaling 180 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Jun 4 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Jul 23 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file AOB. (4th request) |
| Jul 28 2003 | Extension of time granted to 9-26-2003 to file AOB. The court anticipates that after that date, only two further extensions totaling 120 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Aug 5 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Sep 22 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (5th request) |
| Sep 25 2003 | Extension of time granted to 11/25/2003 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only two further extensions totaling 90 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Oct 1 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Nov 20 2003 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (6th request) |
| Nov 25 2003 | Extension of time granted to 1/26/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only one further extension totaling 60 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform the Orange County Superior Court and his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Dec 2 2003 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Jan 21 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (7th request) |
| Jan 23 2004 | Extension of time granted to 3/26/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only one further extension totaling 60 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her assisting attorney or entity, if any, and any assisting attorney or entity of any separate counsel of record, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Feb 2 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Mar 22 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (8th request) |
| Mar 26 2004 | Filed: Supplemental declaration in support of application for extension of time to file opening brief. |
| Apr 1 2004 | Extension of time granted to 5/25/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. The court anticipates that after that date, only three further extensions totaling about 180 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her supervising attorney, if any, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Apr 6 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| May 20 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (9th request) |
| May 25 2004 | Extension of time granted to 7-26-2004 to file AOB. The court anticipates that after that date, only two further extensions totaling about 120 additional days will be granted. Counsel is ordered to inform his or her supervising attorney, if any, of this schedule, and to take all steps necessary to meet it. |
| Jun 2 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Jun 2 2004 | Record certified for accuracy |
| Jun 22 2004 | Record on appeal filed Clerk's Transcript 14 volumes (3,272 pp) and Reporter's Transcript 17 volumes (1,713 pp), including material under seal. Clerk's transcript includes 1,711 pp. of juror questionnaires. |
| Jun 22 2004 | Letter sent to: counsel advising that record on appeal, certified for accuracy, was filed this date. |
| Jul 20 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (10th request) |
| Jul 22 2004 | Extension of time granted to 9/24/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. After that date, only two further extensions totaling about 90 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 12/22/2004. |
| Aug 5 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Sep 17 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (11th request) |
| Sep 20 2004 | Extension of time granted to 11/23/2004 to file appellant's opening brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 30 additional days will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 12/22/2004. |
| Oct 4 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Nov 17 2004 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's opening brief. (12th request) |
| Nov 18 2004 | Extension of time granted to 1/24/2005 to file appellant's opening brief. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by 1/24/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Dec 1 2004 | Counsel's status report received (confidential) from State P.D. |
| Jan 24 2005 | Appellant's opening brief filed (91,870 words; 302 pp.) |
| Jan 26 2005 | Respondent's brief letter sent; due: May 24, 2005 |
| Jan 27 2005 | Filed: Supplemental declaration of service by mail of appellant's opening brief. |
| May 20 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (1st request) |
| May 23 2005 | Extension of time granted to 7/25/2005 to file respondent's brief. |
| Jul 21 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (2nd request) |
| Jul 26 2005 | Extension of time granted to 9/23/2005 to file respondent's brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 30 additional days is contemplated. Extension is granted ased upon Supervising Deputy Attorney General Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 10/21/2005. |
| Sep 16 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file respondent's brief. (3rd request) |
| Sep 23 2005 | Extension of time granted to 10/21/2005 to file respondent's brief. Extension is granted based upon Supervising Deputy Attorney General Rhonda L. Cartwright-Ladendorf's representation that she anticipates filing that brief by 10/21/2005. After that date, no further extension will be granted. |
| Oct 20 2005 | Respondent's brief filed (40366 words; 126 pp. - excluding attached exhibit) |
| Dec 15 2005 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. (1st request) |
| Dec 16 2005 | Extension of time granted to 2/17/2006 to file appellant's reply brief. |
| Feb 17 2006 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. (2nd request) |
| Feb 23 2006 | Extension of time granted to April 18, 2006 to file the appellant's reply brief. After that date, only one further extension totaling about 60 additional days is contemplated. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by June 19, 2006. |
| Apr 17 2006 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. (3rd request) |
| Apr 19 2006 | Extension of time granted to June 19, 2006 to file the appellant's reply brief. After that date, no further extension is contemplated. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticipates filing that brief by June 19, 2006. |
| Jun 12 2006 | Request for extension of time filed to file appellant's reply brief. (4th request) |
| Jun 13 2006 | Extension of time granted to July 19, 2006 to file the appellant's reply brief. After that date, no further extension will be granted. Extension is granted based upon Deputy State Public Defender Ronald Turner's representation that he anticipates filing that document by July 19, 2006. |
| Jul 19 2006 | Appellant's reply brief filed (33,967 words; 115 pp. - excluding attached exhibit) |
| Jul 13 2007 | Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by the State Public Defender. |
| Aug 15 2007 | Motion for appointment of counsel filed Motion of attorney Ronald F. Turner for appointment as counsel for appellant. |
| Aug 24 2007 | Filed: supplemental declaration of service. |
| Aug 27 2007 | Filed: supplemental declaration of service in support of declaration and motion to withdraw as counsel of record for appellant Gunner Jay Lindberg. |
| Sep 12 2007 | Counsel appointment order filed appointing Ronald F. Turner as counsel for appellant for the direct appeal. (NOTE: no separate order; docket event for tracking purposes only.) |
| Sep 12 2007 | Withdrawal of counsel allowed by order Good cause appearing, the application of appointed counsel for permission to withdraw as attorney of record for appellant Gunner Jay Lindberg, filed July 13, 2007, is granted. The order appointing the State Public Defender as appellate counsel of record for appellant Gunner Jay Lindberg, filed May 29, 2002, is hereby vacated. Ronald F. Turner is hereby appointed as counsel of record to represent appellant Gunner Jay Lindberg for the direct appeal in the above automatic appeal now pending in this court. |
| Oct 3 2007 | Received: letter from atty Ronald Turner dated October 1, 2007, requesting that oral argument not be scheduled during December 2007 due to atty will be out of the country. |
| Oct 10 2007 | Lodged: Exhibits: Municipal Court-Peoples 1-5, Court's 2-6, 8, 9 & 11a, People's 1, 2a & 2b, 3=10, 4=14, 5-9, 11-13, 15, 19, 21, 23-29, 34-54, 56-58, 62-73, 75-86. Defense A-C, D1 & D2, E-K, Court's 11. |
| Mar 10 2008 | Oral argument letter sent advising counsel that the court could schedule this case for argument as early as the May 2008 calendars, to be held the weeks of May 5 and May 26, 2008, in San Francisco. The advisement of "focus issues," notification that two counsel are required, and any request for oral argument time in excess of 30 minutes must be submitted to the court within 10 days of the order setting the case for argument. |
| Apr 30 2008 | Case ordered on calendar to be argued on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., in Los Angeles |
| May 6 2008 | Received: letter from respondent, dated May 5, 2008, advising that Deputy Attorney General Adrianne S. Denault will argue the case for respondent. |
| May 12 2008 | Received: appearance sheet from attorney Ronald Turner, indicating 45 minutes for oral argument for appellant. |
| May 12 2008 | Received: appearance sheet from Deputy Attorney General Adrianne S. Denault, indicating 30 minutes for oral argument for respondent. |
| May 14 2008 | Filed: appellant's focus issue letter, dated May 13, 2008. |
| May 28 2008 | Filed: respondent's focus issue letter, dated May 27, 2008. |
| Jun 3 2008 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Jun 18 2008 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Turner |
| Jul 10 2008 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Turner |
| Aug 27 2008 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted |
| Aug 28 2008 | Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full Opinion by Moreno, J. -----joined by George, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan, JJ. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Kennard, J |
| Sep 11 2008 | Rehearing petition filed by appellant. (2,450 words; 9 pp.) |
| Sep 22 2008 | Time extended to consider modification or rehearing The time for granting or denying rehearing in the above-entitled case is hereby extended to and including November 26, 2008, or the date upon which rehearing is either granted or denied, whichever occurs first. |
| Oct 16 2008 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Turner |
| Nov 12 2008 | Rehearing denied The petition for rehearing is denied. |
| Nov 12 2008 | Remittitur issued (AA) |
| Nov 25 2008 | Exhibit(s) returned to superior court. |
| Dec 1 2008 | Received: acknowledge of receipt for remittitur. |
| Dec 5 2008 | Received: acknowledgment of receipt for exhibits. |
| Feb 11 2009 | Received: from appellant, copy of motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on petition for writ of certiorari (23 pp. excluding appendices) |
| Mar 11 2009 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Turner |
| Apr 20 2009 | Received: letter from USSC, dated April 16, 2009, advising that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed on February 9, 2009 and place on the docket April 16, 2009 as No. 08-9800. |
| May 18 2009 | Received: copy of brief in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari (10 pp.) |
| Jun 15 2009 | Certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court |
| Jun 17 2009 | Related habeas corpus petition filed (post-judgment) Appellant: Lindberg, Gunner Jay by Michael Millman, Executive Director of the California Appellate Project, San Francisco |
| Jul 29 2009 | Compensation awarded counsel Atty Turner |
| Briefs | |
| Jan 24 2005 | Appellant's opening brief filed |
| Oct 20 2005 | Respondent's brief filed |
| Jul 19 2006 | Appellant's reply brief filed |
| Jan 4, 2009 Annotated by diana teasland | Background: Thien Minh Ly On January 28, 1996, victim Thien Minh Ly, a 24-year old Vietnamese man, left his parent’s home in Tustin to rollerblade on the tennis courts at nearby Tustin High School. Ly did not return home. His body was discovered the next day. Ly suffered multiple stab wounds to his neck, chest, and arm. In addition, he had been stabbed 14 times in the heart. Gunner Jay Lindberg Defendant is a member of the white power movement, having numerous links to White supremacist organizations and the Aryan Movement. He is also a proud member of a gang known as the Insane Criminal Posse (ICP). Defendant’s Confession - The February 23rd Letter On February 29, 1996, Walter Ray Dulaney IV, defendant’s cousin and fellow member of the white power movement, received the following handwritten letter from the defendant in which defendant admitted to committing the murder of Thien Minh Ly: “Oh, I killed a jap a while ago. I stabbed him to death at tustin High school I walked up to him Dominic was with me and I seen this guy Roller blading and I had a knife. We walked in the tennis court where he was I walked up to him, Dominic was right there. I walked right up to [unintelligible] him and he was scared I looked at him and said, ‘oh, I thought I knew you’ and he got happy that he wasn’t gona get jumped. then I hit him with one of my mother fuckers and he feel on the ground and he said in a very low voice ‘what the fuck’ and ‘you can have whatever I got.’ I have nothing only a key. You can have it’ then I said ‘you got a car,’ oh I pulled the knife out a butcher knife! and he said ‘no’ then I put the knife to his throught and asked him ‘Do you have a car.’ And he grabed my hand that I had the knife in and looked at me, trying to get a discription of me so I stomped on his head 3 times and each time said ‘stop looking at me’ then he was kinda knocked out Dazzed then I stabbed him in the side about 7 or 8 times he rolled over a little so I stabbed his back about 18 or 19 times then he layed flat and I slit one side of his throught on his jugular vain. Oh, the sounds the guy was making were like uhhh then Dominic said, ‘do it again’ and I said ‘I already did, Dude’ ‘ya, do it again’ so I cut his other juggular vain, and Dominic said ‘kill him do it again.’ I said, ‘he’s already dead’ Dominic said, ‘stab him in the heart.’ So I stabbed him about 20 to 21 times in the heart and we took off. . . . [T]hen I wanted to go back and look, so we did and he was dieing just then taking in some bloody gasps of [illegible] air so I nudged his face with my shoe a few times then I told Dominic to kick him, so he kicked the fuck out of his face and he still has blood on his shoes all over [smiley face] then I ditched the knife, after whiping it clean onto the side of the I5 freeway [smiley face] here’s the clippings from the news paper and we were on all the news channels 2/11 Insane Loc in having a ball in tustin wish you were here. . . .” Defendant subsequently phoned Delaney and told him that he killed Ly “for the racial movement.” Arrest and Trial: I. Prosecution’s Guilt Phase Case Defendant was arrested on March 2, 1996. He admitted having written the February 23rd letter, but denied having committed the crime. He claimed that he wrote the letter to impress his cousin, and had made up the details. He claimed that he had heard about the crime from news reports. A. Forensic Evidence Prosecution introduced a bloody glove and t-shirt found in defendant’s home. DNA samples matched the blood of both the defendant and the victim. B. Prior Acts Evidence Prosecution introduced evidence of uncharged robberies and attempted robberies defendant had committed C. Evidence Offered to Support the Hate-murder Special-circumstance Allegation Prosecution offered evidence of anti-Asian statements defendant made to co-workers prior to his arrest as well as oral and written statements made to other inmates while in the Orange County Jail awaiting trial in this case. In these statements defendant referred to Asians using various epithets and derogatory terms and repeatedly affirmed his belief in white supremacy. D. Expert Testimony Huntington Beach Police Department Sergeant Ronald Miller testified for the prosecution as an expert on II. Defendant’s Guilt Phase Case Walter Ray Dulaney III, Robert Dulaney’s father, testified that he had known defendant all of defendant’s life and have never heard him utter any racial slurs or engage in any behavior that suggested defendant was involved in any white supremacist organizations. Defendant’s girlfriend and co-worker testified that she never heard defendant use any racial slurs or call Asians by any derogatory names. III. Prosecution Penalty Phase Case Prosecution offered evidence of prior assaults committed by a defendant, including an assault with a IV. Defendant’s Penalty Phase Case Defense offered testimony from a Marine Corps Sergeant Russell Hayes, with whom defendant briefly lived. Issues on Appeal: (1) Guilt Phase Issues Analysis: (1) Guilt Phase Issues a. Trial Court Error in Admitting Evidence of Defendant’s Two Prior Uncharged Robberies Admission of evidence of uncharged robberies committed by defendant was properly admitted for the purpose of proving defendant’s intent to the rob the victim. Written by Matthew Levy |
| Jan 10, 2009 Annotated by diana teasland | Written by Patricia Pei A. Prosecution Guilt Phase Case 1. The Murder of Thien Minh Ly Defendant concedes that the prosecution proved he murdered Ly on the Tustin High School tennis courts on January 28, 1996. 2. Discussion On appeal, defendant first claims the trial court erred by allowing Sergeant Miller to testify that written and printed material found in defendant’s bedroom, including letters written by defendant before and after Ly’s murder, referred to White supremacist organizations and espoused White supremacist beliefs. Defendant asserts that Miller’s testimony should have been restricted to identifying the organizations listed in defendant’s Bible or on the “Pro White Organizations” list, and that jurors were capable of recognizing and understanding any White supremacist references or overtones in the writings and printed material. III. Penalty Phase A. CALJIC No. 8.85 Defendant contends that CALJIC No. 8.85, which describes the [64]aggravating and mitigating factors the jury may consider in determining penalty, is constitutionally flawed because (1) the instruction fails to inform the jury which factors are mitigating and which factors are aggravating, and (2) the use of the modifiers “extreme” and “substantial” in the instruction acts as a barrier to the jury’s consideration of mitigation. We previously have rejected these challenges. (People v. Ramirez, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 469 [“instructions in the language of CALJIC No. 8.85 do not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to delete inapplicable sentencing factors or delineate between aggravating and mitigating circumstances”]; People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 319 [the terms “extreme” and “substantial” do not unconstitutionally limit the mitigating factors the jury may consider]; see also People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 675–676 [CALJIC No. 8.85 does not preclude jurors from considering lesser mental or emotional disturbance as a mitigating factor in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments].) Defendant offers no persuasive reason to reconsider our prior decisions. B. CALJIC No. 8.88 Defendant contends various aspects of CALJIC No. 8.88 violated his [65]rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and corresponding provisions of the California Constitution. As defendant concedes, we previously have considered and rejected each of these arguments, and do so again now as defendant offers no persuasive reason to reconsider our prior decisions. We thus hold that CALJIC No. 8.88: (1) is not unconstitutional for failing to advise the jury that if the mitigating circumstances outweigh those in aggravation, it is required to return a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 619); (2) is not unconstitutional for failing to inform the jury that it may return a sentence of life without the possibility of parole even in the absence of mitigating evidence (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 43); (3) is not unconstitutionally vague in using the “so substantial” standard for comparing mitigating and aggravating [66]circumstances (People v. Geier, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 619); and (4) is not unconstitutional because it requires the jury to decide whether the death penalty is “warranted” rather than “appropriate” (People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 137). Defendant contends the trial court was required to instruct the jury that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole meant that defendant would never be considered for parole. He acknowledges this court previously has rejected this argument (see People v. Cox, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 967), but asks that we reconsider these decisions in light of Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) 512 U.S. 154, Shafer v. South Carolina (2001) 532 U.S. 36, and Kelly v. South Carolina (2002) 534 U.S. 246. We have considered the impact of these decisions by the high court in rejecting this argument. (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 352–355; People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 635–636; People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 269–271.) Defendant offers no persuasive reason to revisit our prior decisions. D. Miscellaneous Constitutional Challenges to California’s Death Penalty Statute Defendant contends California’s death penalty law is unconstitutional on several grounds. We have previously rejected these arguments, and defendant fails to persuade us to reconsider our prior decisions. Defendant contends that California’s death penalty scheme and his individual death sentence violate article VII of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by violating “international human rights norms” and “evolving standards of decency.” F. Cumulative Error Defendant contends that the cumulative effect of the guilt and penalty phase errors requires reversal of his conviction and death sentence even if no single error compels reversal. Because we have either rejected on the merits defendant’s claims of error or have found any assumed errors to be nonprejudicial, we reject his contention. We likewise reject defendant’s contention with respect to the cumulative effect of any assumed errors. |
