People v. Contreras
58 Cal. 4th 123
| Cal. | 2013Background
- In December 1994 Saleh Bin Hassan was shot and killed in his market in Farmersville; nothing was taken from the register but his wallet and handgun were missing. Defendant George Lopez Contreras was identified as the shooter and convicted of first‑degree felony murder and robbery; a robbery‑murder special circumstance was found and a death sentence imposed.
- Key eyewitnesses (Lupe Valencia and Artero Vallejo Jr.) testified that defendant carried a shotgun into the store, shot Hassan twice after the clerk displayed a handgun, and later bragged and showed Hassan’s handgun; other witnesses tied defendant to borrowed long guns and to possession of the victim’s handgun recovered from defendant’s brother.
- Defense presented an alibi from family members placing defendant with his infant son and girlfriend soon after the crime; prosecution rebutted with testimony that the child remained with the mother and other evidence linking defendant to the scene.
- At penalty phase, prosecution introduced victim impact and evidence of an unadjudicated August 1994 shooting by defendant (assault with a firearm); defense presented mitigating family and background evidence.
- The California Supreme Court conducted exhaustive review of procedural and instructional claims (voir dire sufficiency, adequacy of charging document for felony‑murder, evidentiary rulings, various jury instructions, and constitutionality of the felony‑murder special circumstance) and affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire adequacy | Trial court and prosecutors properly conducted extensive individual sequestered voir dire and used questionnaires; no constitutional violation | Court should have conducted general/group voir dire on reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, and burden of proof and/or asked specific Standard questions verbatim | No reversible error; ample inquiry occurred, defense forfeited further complaint by accepting court’s course, and voir dire was adequate on the record |
| Sufficiency/notice of charge (felony‑murder) | Charging murder under Pen. Code §187 (malice) fairly notifies defendant of theories and supports conviction of first‑degree felony murder | Information failed to charge first‑degree felony murder under §189, so conviction on felony‑murder theory violated due process and Apprendi | Rejected: a §187 murder charge supports conviction under any degree/theory including §189 felony‑murder; Apprendi does not change pleading rule here |
| Exclusion of impeachment evidence (Lupe’s report cards) | Exclusion was proper under Evidence Code and collateral‑impeachment doctrines; reports irrelevant to guilt | Report cards contradicted witness’s testimony about being affected by the crime and were admissible impeachment evidence | No abuse of discretion: report cards were collateral, of minimal probative value on central issues, and their exclusion did not prejudice defendant |
| Failure to give certain jury instructions (single‑witness; reasonable doubt dilution; CALJIC 8.88 wording; penalty‑phase credibility instructions; special mitigating instructions) | Instructions given as a whole correctly stated law; no dilution of burden; CALJIC 8.88 and other refusals were proper and nonprejudicial | Court erred by omitting single‑witness instruction, failing to reiterate guilt‑phase credibility guidance at penalty phase, and denying certain requested penalty instructions | Court rejected claims: no single‑witness problem (multiple corroborating witnesses), reasonable‑doubt and weight/credibility instructions were not misleading, omission of some penalty instructions harmless, and CALJIC 8.88 sufficient |
| Constitutional challenge to felony‑murder special‑circumstance statute | Death penalty requires proof of culpable mental state (e.g., intent to kill or reckless indifference) to satisfy Eighth Amendment and Enmund/Tison limits | Section 190.2(a)(17) valid as applied to an actual killer; an actual killer need not have intent to kill for capital eligibility | Rejected: under precedent an actual killer convicted of felony murder may be death‑eligible without specific intent to kill; Enmund/Tison govern nonkiller accomplices, not actual killers |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing maximum penalty must be proven to a jury; court declined to alter California pleading rule here)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (death penalty unconstitutional for defendants who neither killed nor intended to kill)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (nonkiller accomplice death eligibility where major participation combined with reckless indifference)
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1983) (describing §189 as first‑degree felony‑murder rule; discussed and not read to alter §187 charging rule)
- People v. Harris, 43 Cal.4th 1269 (Cal. 2008) (§187 charge supports first‑degree felony‑murder conviction; discussion of pleading/degree issues)
- People v. Letner & Tobin, 50 Cal.4th 99 (Cal. 2010) (clarifies interplay of felony‑murder culpability, Tison, and actual killers for death eligibility)