People v. Buenrostro
240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 704
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Dora Buenrostro was tried for the 1994 stabbing murders of her three children; a jury convicted her of three counts of first-degree murder, found three multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations true, and returned a death verdict after the penalty phase.
- Pretrial, a competency inquiry under Penal Code §1368 was held; a jury found Buenrostro competent despite defense experts diagnosing psychotic/delusional disorders and prosecution-appointed experts testifying competency.
- At the competency trial and later criminal trial, disputed evidence included MMPI results, expert opinions about malingering and proper forensic procedures, and jail writings seized and translated by the prosecution.
- During guilt-phase jury selection, the trial court excused at least one prospective juror (B.R.) for cause based solely on questionnaire responses about the death penalty.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed guilt, vacated two of three multiplicity special-circumstance findings, reversed the death sentence, and remanded for a new penalty determination due to improper excusal of a capital juror.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of §1367 definition of incompetence (requirement of mental disorder) | §1367 is constitutional and consistent with Dusky; competency properly requires a causal mental condition | §1367 is facially inadequate because it requires proof of a mental disorder and omits "rational and factual" understanding and "present" ability language from Dusky | Statute and CALJIC 4.10 constitutional; language aligns with Dusky; no facial invalidity found |
| Exclusion/admission of evidence at competency hearing (Skidmore rebuttal, parts of Kania/Mills testimony, jail writings) | Court properly exercised Evidence Code §352 discretion; writings admissible in surrebuttal; discovery sanctions harmless | Exclusion of rebuttal/expert testimony and discovery sanctions violated rights and prejudiced competency finding | Rulings largely upheld; any assumed errors were harmless—writings admissible as surrebuttal; overall competency proceeding not fundamentally unfair |
| Denial of midtrial Faretta self-representation request | Denial proper as request was untimely, disruptive, and made to obstruct or delay; court properly exercised Windham discretion | Faretta right should be honored; request timely because new audiotape raised issues defendant could not previously present | Denial not an abuse of discretion: request untimely and likely to disrupt/delay trial; court permissibly considered multiple Windham factors |
| Excusal for cause of prospective juror(s) based solely on questionnaire (Witherspoon/Witt) | Excusals were proper where questionnaire responses showed inability to follow law and duties | Excusing juror B.R. on questionnaire alone was improper; responses were ambiguous and required voir dire | Error in excusing B.R. for cause based solely on questionnaire; under Gray v. Mississippi this Witherspoon/Witt error mandates reversal of the penalty judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (recognition of competence standard: present ability to consult with counsel with reasonable degree of rational understanding)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (procedural protections required to avoid trial of an incompetent defendant)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (standard for competency-related procedural safeguards)
- Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (erroneous excusal of juror for cause based on death-penalty views requires automatic reversal of penalty phase)
- People v. Medina, 51 Cal.3d 870 (competency hearing standards; reversible error where court fails to protect incompetent-defendant rights)
- People v. Jablonski, 37 Cal.4th 774 (statutory competency language consistent with Dusky)