People v. Caro, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96

Background

In November 1999 Socorro Susan Caro was accused of shooting three of her four children and later was found with a gunshot wound to the head; she was tried, convicted of three counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death in 2002.
Physical and forensic evidence placed blood and projected gunshot spatter on Caro’s clothing and the house; bloody handprints matching Caro were found on a doorjamb; bullet trajectories and surgical findings were presented by prosecution experts.
Caro underwent extensive hospital treatment; while in the ICU detectives (including Detective Wade) questioned her for several hours before giving Miranda warnings; Caro made various statements and later invoked her right to counsel.
Defense presented alternative theory implicating husband Xavier (timing of his travel, transfer stains on his clothes) and presented experts challenging some forensic inferences; jury rejected that theory.
On appeal Caro raised multiple claims: juror-screening and excusal procedures, admissibility of hospital statements and physical evidence, Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues, evidentiary rulings, juror misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and constitutional challenges to California’s death-penalty scheme. The Supreme Court of California affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Caro)	Held
1. Defendant’s right to be present for counsel’s stipulated excusal of prospective jurors	Stipulated excusals were proper; defendant’s absence from informal discussions caused no prejudice	Caro argued she had to be present when counsel stipulated to excusals (62 jurors) and that absence was reversible error	Court: No violation; prior precedent (Ervin, Benavides) controls; absence was not prejudicial and claim forfeited in part.
2. For-cause dismissal of specific prospective jurors (J.W., D.S.) in capital voir dire	Prosecution: dismissal supported by jurors’ equivocal statements showing substantial impairment to consider death and life options	Caro: dismissals improper; jurors should not be excused for merely expressing reservations	Court: Upheld dismissals; substantial evidence supported the court’s impressions that each juror was substantially impaired.
3. Admissibility of statements to Detective Wade in hospital (Miranda and voluntariness)	People: statements were noncustodial or otherwise admissible; even assuming error, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Caro: statements obtained without Miranda warnings and while incapacitated/in ICU were involuntary and inadmissible	Court: Declined to definitively rule constitutional violation; assumed possible error but held admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming forensic and other evidence. (Concurring justice would have held statements involuntary and non-Miranda.)
4. Fourth Amendment suppression & ineffective assistance for failing to file motions (clothing, surgical photos, bullet fragments, scrapes)	People: many items were lawfully seized or admissible; work-product discovery and other doctrines limit relief; no prejudice shown	Caro: counsel ineffective for not seeking suppression of hospital-seized clothing, surgical photos, bullet fragments, fingernail scrapings, ICU statements	Court: Forfeiture and lack of record explanation defeat many claims; plain-view seizure of clothing plausibly lawful; even if motions should have been filed, Caro did not show prejudice under Strickland/Kimmelman.
5. Admission of demonstrative evidence (computer animation)	People: animation was demonstrative of expert opinion, accompanied by limiting instructions, and probative on identity/forensics	Caro: animation prejudicial, cumulative, and likely to mislead jury	Court: Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion under Evidence Code §352; limiting instructions mitigated prejudice.
6. Evidentiary rulings (autopsy photos, impeachment, excluded police report language, therapist records)	People: rulings were within trial court discretion; any error harmless or forfeited; therapist records protected by psychotherapist-patient privilege	Caro: various rulings improperly limited defense and impaired confrontation/right to present a defense	Court: No reversible error; autopsy photos properly admitted; Hammon precedent foreclosed pretrial disclosure of therapist records; excluded items were cumulatively harmless.
7. Juror misconduct and new-trial issues (parking-lot conversation; dismissal of Juror No. 9; notes destroyed)	People: trial court properly investigated, removed Juror No. 9 for deliberate misconduct; Juror No. 11’s involvement insufficient to show prejudice; destruction of juror notes followed routine practice and caused no prejudice	Caro: juror conversation demonstrated misconduct requiring mistrial or new trial; destroying notes violated statute and prejudiced defense	Court: Removal of Juror No. 9 was invited by defense (waived objection); no reversible prejudice as to Juror No. 11; destruction of notes harmless.
8. Prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error	People: argument fell within permissible bounds or was forfeited when not objected to; any errors harmless	Caro: numerous guilt and penalty phase remarks were improper and cumulatively prejudicial	Court: Most claims forfeited; preserved ones were harmless and did not require reversal.
9. Constitutional challenges to California death-penalty scheme	People: existing framework constitutional	Caro: various Eighth, Sixth, and due process challenges	Court: Rejected; followed binding precedent rejecting those structural challenges.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning requirement for custodial interrogation)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (hospital interrogation of seriously wounded suspect can render statements involuntary)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for juror exclusion based on capital-punishment views)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (ineffective assistance standard where counsel fails to litigate Fourth Amendment claim)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Ervin, 22 Cal.4th 48 (2000) (permitting counsel to prescreen juror questionnaires and stipulate to excusals)
People v. Duenas, 55 Cal.4th 1 (2012) (admission of demonstrative computer animation and standards for expert demonstratives)
People v. Rundle, 43 Cal.4th 76 (2008) (standards for admission and use of penalty-phase evidence and prior-act proof)
People v. Coddington, 23 Cal.4th 529 (2000) (limits on prosecutor questions that imply defense withheld experts)