People v. Boyce, 59 Cal. 4th 672

Background

On Aug. 14, 1997, Kevin Boyce and co-defendant Andre Willis committed armed burglaries/robberies at a hair salon and later at a pizzeria; Deputy Shayne York (off‑duty) was shot once at the salon and died. Boyce was convicted of first‑degree murder (including special circumstances: killing a peace officer in retaliation and felony‑murder during robbery/burglary), multiple robberies/attempted robberies and burglaries, and found to have personally used a firearm. He was sentenced to death and a concurrent determinate term (stayed).
Physical evidence (firearm, shell casing, fingerprints on murder weapon, ATM card use, property in the car) and witness identifications tied Boyce to the crimes; a covert recorded jailhouse conversation and Boyce’s recorded statements were admitted and considered.
Defense presented challenges to confession reliability and offered mitigation evidence of low IQ, learning disabilities, brain injury, substance abuse, and mental illness; experts testified but did not conclude complete incapacity to distinguish right/wrong.
At penalty, defense sought self‑representation and to limit counsel’s participation; the trial court denied pro se status as untimely and because Boyce repeatedly said he did not want to represent himself. Counsel then presented mitigation and jurors deliberated penalty.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of California affirmed convictions and death sentence on all major guilt/penalty issues but found a Cunningham Sixth‑Amendment error in imposing upper terms on one determinate count (victim vulnerability used by judge without jury finding); the determinate term was conditionally modified and remand for resentencing was preserved to the People.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Boyce)	Held
Admissibility of 911 tapes (guilt/penalty)	Tapes are contemporaneous, relevant to crime scene, credibility, and victim impact; admissible.	Tapes are irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, violate due process.	Admitted: probative for credibility/crime circumstances and penalty impact; not unduly prejudicial.
Flight instruction (CALJIC No. 2.52)	Evidence of immediate departure, hiding weapons/property supports flight inference; instruction proper.	Insufficient evidence of flight; instruction improper and unconstitutional/permissive.	Instruction proper; facts supported inference of flight; standard wording upheld.
Peace‑officer special circumstance (§190.2(a)(7)) — sufficiency & vagueness	Evidence (comments about badge, racial epithets, admission of motive, gang membership) shows intentional killing in retaliation for officer duties; statute clear.	Statute requires proof defendant targeted officer for specific official acts; otherwise vague and overbroad.	Substantial evidence supports retaliation finding; statute not unconstitutionally vague or requiring link to specific acts.
Felony‑murder special circumstances (robbery/burglary) — sufficiency & jury instruction	Killing occurred during burglary/robbery as part of a continuous transaction and defendant had independent felonious purpose; CALJIC instruction correct.	Killing was retaliatory/status killing, felonies incidental to murder; instruction and findings improper.	Substantial evidence supports felony‑murder special circumstances; CALJIC 8.81.17 correctly stated Green rule and court’s supplemental reply was proper (defense forfeited any complaint).
Faretta / self‑representation at penalty phase	Boyce did not unequivocally demand to proceed pro se; request untimely and inconsistent; court properly denied.	Boyce sought removal of counsel and effective control of penalty phase; denial violated Faretta.	No Sixth Amendment violation: Boyce repeatedly said he did not want to represent himself; motion was equivocal/untimely and court acted within discretion.
Determinate sentencing — judge‑found aggravating facts (Cunningham)	Upper term chosen properly based on aggravation and/or prior convictions and probation report.	Imposition of upper term for victim vulnerability was based on judge‑found fact not found by jury — Cunningham error requiring relief.	Cunningham error: judge imposed upper term on count 2 and enhancement based on victim vulnerability (no jury finding). Remedial conditional modification to lower terms was ordered, with remand option preserved to People.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Streeter, 54 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2012) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary discretion)
People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 1996) (admission of circumstances attending violent crimes)
People v. Roybal, 19 Cal.4th 481 (Cal. 1998) (admission of spontaneous 911 statements relevant to crime scene/credibility)
People v. Gurule, 28 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 2002) (victim‑impact and gruesome evidence balancing probative/prejudicial value)
People v. Hawthorne, 46 Cal.4th 67 (Cal. 2009) (911 recordings admissible as penalty‑phase victim impact)
People v. Green, 27 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1980) (felony‑murder special circumstance not supported when felony is merely incidental to murder)
Coffman & Marlow v. People, 34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) (continuous‑transaction test for felony‑murder special circumstance)
People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) (peace‑officer murder special circumstance requires accused’s subjective intent)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (U.S. 2007) (judge‑found facts cannot expose defendant to greater upper term beyond statutory maximum; jury right under Sixth Amendment)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (categorical Eighth Amendment bar to executing intellectually disabled)
Hall v. Florida, 134 S.Ct. 1986 (U.S. 2014) (standards for assessing intellectual disability and rejection of rigid IQ cutoff)