People v. Anderson
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
Cal.2018Background
- Eric Anderson was convicted by jury of first-degree murder with special circumstances (robbery/burglary), conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary, two counts of residential burglary, and found to have personally discharged a firearm; a separate bench conviction for felon in possession and multiple prior-felony and prior-prison enhancements were found true.
- Facts: Anderson and co-conspirators planned daytime burglaries to steal a safe; on April 14, 2003, Anderson drove a Ford Bronco to the Brucker residence, accompanied two others to the door, and Brucker was shot once and later died; witnesses and co-conspirator testimony implicated Anderson as the older shooter who fled in a loud Bronco.
- Physical and circumstantial evidence included stolen items from prior burglaries found linked to Anderson (property and a phone), the stolen handgun found in a truck he later drove in Oregon, telephone records, witness identifications of a loud Bronco, and post-crime flight/escape-related conduct in Oregon (false I.D. materials, escape plans, handcuff keys).
- During trial a codefendant (Handshoe) pled guilty and testified for the prosecution under a plea agreement; other witnesses (Peretti, Paulson) testified with immunity or cooperation; defense contested severance, evidentiary rulings, and witness credibility.
- After a penalty trial the jury returned a death verdict; the Supreme Court of California affirmed the convictions and death judgment but modified the judgment to strike a one-year prior-prison-term enhancement and directed correction of the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of severance of defendants | Joint trial proper; promotes efficiency and reliability | Joint trial prejudiced Anderson due to antagonistic defenses and later codefendant plea/testimony | No abuse of discretion; joinder appropriate; separate jury used for one codefendant mitigated prejudice |
| Joinder of burglary counts with murder counts | Burglaries and murder linked by common intent/plan and Bronco evidence; joinder proper | Severance required because crimes occurred at different times/places and could inflame jury | Joinder proper; evidence relevant to intent/plan and to identity; no undue prejudice |
| Admission of flight/escape/Oregon evidence | Probative of consciousness of guilt and admissible for guilt and penalty (but limited) | Flight may have innocent explanations (parole violation); escape detail prejudicial | Admissible; alternate explanations go to weight; admission not an abuse of discretion and could be considered at penalty under §190.3(a) |
| Use of Handshoe plea & testimony | Prosecution timely provided discovery when he became a witness; plea not coercive | Late discovery and plea coerced testimony; counsel participated in voir dire before plea | No prosecutorial misconduct; plea conditioned only on truthful testimony is permissible; denial of mistrial/continuance not an abuse |
| Ordering drug test for witness (Peretti) | Testing would show intoxication affecting credibility; jurors entitled to know | Intrusive search; probable cause required; cross-examination suffices | Court properly refused; absent probable cause court should not order bodily intrusion |
| Experiment/listening to Bronco | Sound corroborates witness descriptions linking Bronco to crime | Conditions differed from time of crime; experiment unreliable/prejudicial | Permitted as circumstantial evidence; relevance and weight for jury; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of double hearsay (Northcutt) | Prior inconsistent statement and defendant admission exceptions apply | Hearsay and not truly inconsistent | Admissible: defendant’s statement as party admission and Northcutt’s report as prior inconsistent statement |
| Use of telephone metadata obtained under SCA | Records admissible; Smith v. Maryland supports no Fourth Amendment violation | Carpenter may require warrant for such data | Even if suppression error, any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the limited role of data |
| Juror exposure to another codefendant's verdict | Court should delay/seal verdict or question jury for bias | Huhn had right to public verdict; sealing/waiting would impair rights | Court properly took verdict publicly and admonished jurors; no evidence jury was influenced; no further inquiry required |
| Misc. penalty-phase and instructional claims (defendant's statement, CALJIC instructions, lingering doubt) | Some specific instruction changes requested; defendant’s courtroom statement prejudiced reliability | Standard instructions sufficient; defendant has right to speak; court added instruction about jury obligation | No instructional error; statement permitted and court gave instruction advising jurors to decide penalty based on statutory factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (joint trials often preferable to avoid inconsistent verdicts)
- People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, 60 Cal.4th 335 (2014) (legislative preference for joint trials and standard for severance review)
- People v. Sánchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (2016) (discussion of joinder, severance, and related federal constitutional analysis)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974) (procedures for in camera review of officer personnel records)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits on use of out-of-court testimonial statements)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party phone numbers dialed not a Fourth Amendment search)
- People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (2000) (standards for accomplice plea agreements and coercion analysis)
- People v. Homick, 55 Cal.4th 816 (2012) (limitations on plea agreements that would coerce accomplice testimony)
- People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal.4th 40 (2013) (accomplice definition and jury determination whether witness is accomplice)
- People v. Zapien, 4 Cal.4th 929 (1993) (double hearsay admissibility where each layer fits an exception)