29 Cal. App. 5th 917
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Shauna Burton was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree robbery, found to have used two deadly weapons, and a multiple-murder special circumstance; sentenced to life without parole plus seven years.
- Facts: Burton participated in a pharmacy robbery earlier that morning; later went to the Bains' trailer purportedly to get pain pills; both elderly victims suffered severe blunt and stab injuries; Melvin died at scene, Jean died later.
- Witness Patrick Vanorman saw Burton enter the trailer and heard screaming; Burton left, changed clothes, and fled in a Cadillac later located by police.
- Burton made multiple false statements to Detective Meux after arrest and testified at trial claiming self-defense (she said Jean attacked her and she used a flashlight to defend herself). The jury rejected her account.
- On appeal Burton challenged (1) admission of evidence about a prior domestic violence conviction, (2) sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder, and (3) the trial court’s instruction on the import of willfully false pretrial statements (CALCRIM No. 362). The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Burton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior conviction | Prior conviction showed credibility and propensity relevant to identity/behavior | Admission was improper and prejudicial | Affirmed (court rejected challenge; not reversible error) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder | Evidence (Maglite choice, repeated blows to head/neck, eliminating witness, concealment, lies) supports premeditation and deliberation | No substantial evidence of premeditation; self-defense/heat of passion plausible | Affirmed (jury could infer quick premeditation; evidence sufficient) |
| CALCRIM No. 362 instruction on false statements | Instruction appropriately permits inference of consciousness of guilt and cautions jury that false statements alone do not prove guilt | Instruction wording ("the charged crime") could improperly limit inference to guilt of charged offenses and force inference of first-degree murder rather than any wrongdoing | Affirmed (instruction viewed in context with all instructions; jurors would understand consciousness of wrongdoing generally; any ambiguity was not prejudicial) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Crandell, 46 Cal.3d 833 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (jury understands "consciousness of guilt" as consciousness of wrongdoing, not equivalent to a confession)
- People v. Arias, 13 Cal.4th 92 (1996) ("consciousness of guilt" means consciousness of some wrongdoing, not each element of charged offense)
- People v. McGowan, 160 Cal.App.4th 1099 (2008) (differences between CALCRIM No. 362 and CALJIC No. 2.03 are minor)
- People v. Holloway, 33 Cal.4th 96 (2004) (inference of consciousness of guilt from falsehoods is supported by common sense)
- People v. Covarrubias, 1 Cal.5th 838 (2016) (instructions admonishing jurors to be circumspect about consciousness-of-guilt evidence benefit the defense)