People v. Carrasco
59 Cal. 4th 924
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Carrasco was convicted of two first-degree murders, robbery of one victim, and jail escape; jury found weapon-use and multiple-murder/robbery-murder special circumstances; death sentence imposed and automatic appeal filed.
- Court vacated true findings on two section 190.2, subdivision (a)(14) special-circumstance allegations but affirmed otherwise.
- Defendant’s defense included background and drug-use testimony; prosecution presented extensive eyewitness and custodial statements, plus extensive social history and victim-impact evidence during penalty phase.
- Escape was admitted at trial as consciousness-of-guilt evidence; court admitted escape evidence over defense objection with a standard flight instruction.
- Pretrial counsel issues arose: defense sought a second cocounsel under former § 987(d); trial court denied; issue on effectiveness of counsel later raised in posttrial proceedings.
- The Court ultimately vacated the two 190.2(a)(14) findings, held no reversible error on other asserted issues, and denied most ineffective-assistance claims on the record, affirming the judgment in all respects except for the vacated findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second counsel appointment in capital case | Beswick needed second counsel for dual-murder/escape case | Second counsel necessary for effective defense | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown |
| Cross-section/jury compensation claim | Jury pool underrepresents poor; financial hardship excusals biased | Exemptions did not show systematic exclusion | Claim forfeited; no constitutional error proven |
| Right to be present at critical stages | Carrasco absent during some conferences | Presence not material to defense | Record shows presence or non-prejudice; no violation found |
| Admissibility of escape evidence | Escape evidence shows consciousness of guilt | Prejudicial/undue prejudice risk | Permissible; flight evidence properly admitted with flight instruction |
| 190.2(a)(14) special-circumstance instruction | Instruction vague and unconstitutional | Evidence supports other special circumstances; error harmless | Vacate true findings on the 190.2(a)(14) allegations; no prejudice shown otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Keenan v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 424 (1982) (appointment of second counsel requires showing of need and complexity)
- People v. Lancaster, 41 Cal.4th 50 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for second-counsel claims in capital cases)
- People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal.4th 263 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; comprehensive review of second-counsel issues)
- Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006) (harmless-error review for sentencing factors; impact on death penalty verdict)
- People v. Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 681 (2009) (death penalty statute not unconstitutional on its face or as applied)