People v. Booker
51 Cal. 4th 141
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Defendant Richard Booker was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, arson, and attempted murder; true findings on special circumstances including multiple murder and rape/lewd act by force with a child under 14; personal use of a handgun and knife; automatic death sentence for the murders; penalties for other counts.
- Guilt phase evidence showed Powalka, Amanda, and Corina were murdered during a single incident with Maddox present, followed by arson of the apartment; Corina was 12, Powalka and Amanda were adults; autopsies showed blood loss as cause of death.
- Penalty phase evidence included uncharged violent conduct, victim-impact testimony, and elaborate sentencing factors; defendant presented no direct defense, while the state introduced extensive victim-impact and conduct evidence.
- Defense challenged pretrial grand jury procedure and several trial-stage issues, including juror selection and Batson/Wheeler challenges; many claims were resolved on forfeiture or non-prejudicial grounds.
- Court affirmed the judgment of death and resolved multiple structural and evidentiary challenges in the guilt and penalty phases, upholding the sufficiency of evidence and the propriety of admitted evidence, while rejecting broader constitutional challenges to California’s death penalty scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grand jury swearing-in timing violated rights | Pretrial error; irregularity prejudiced indictment | Irregularity prejudiced prosecution and undermined fairness | Belated oaths did not prejudice outcome; no reversal |
| Witt/Witherspoon prescreening of jurors | Stipulated excusals bypassed proper voir dire | Stipulation violated rights to voir dire | Forfeited challenge; no reversal due to lack of actual prejudice |
| Batson/Wheeler racial-discrimination claim | Prosecutor impermissibly struck African-Americans | Reasons for strikes were pretextual | Trial court’s reasons supported; no reversible discriminatory intent established |
| Failure to determine racial bias of venire | Trial court should probe potential racial bias | Defendant requested more probing | Claim forfeited; no fundamental unfairness shown |
| Admission of crime-scene photographs | Photographs were probative and not unduly prejudicial | Photographs inflammatory; cumulative | Court did not abuse discretion; photographs admissible to prove events and intent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pompa-Ortiz, 27 Cal.3d 519 (1980) (pretrial irregularities and required prejudice showing for posttrial challenges)
- People v. Jablonski, 37 Cal.4th 774 (2006) (prejudice required for posttrial grand jury irregularities)
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) (grand jury discrimination concerns require prejudice analysis)
- Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946) (gender discrimination in grand jury context)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (prejudice standard for non-structural error review)
- People v. Benavides, 35 Cal.4th 69 (2005) (upholding prescreening excusals per defense agreement)
- People v. Ervin, 22 Cal.4th 48 (2000) (reliability of stipulations in voir dire)
- People v. Cook, 40 Cal.4th 1334 (2007) (death-penalty voir dire practices and forfeiture rules)
- Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007) (pretrial excusal and considering juror impartiality)
- Salcido, 44 Cal.4th 93 (2008) (death-penalty voir dire and religious beliefs as race-neutral reason)
- People v. Hamilton, 45 Cal.4th 863 (2009) (Batson/Wheeler standards and racial discrimination analysis)