People v. Daveggio & Michaud
231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Defendants James Daveggio and Michelle Michaud were convicted of first-degree murder (Vanessa Samson), two counts of oral copulation by force (Sharona Doe), and one count of oral copulation of a minor (April Doe); jury found kidnapping and rape-by-instrument special circumstances and returned death verdicts; judgments affirmed.
- Extensive evidence of multiple uncharged and charged prior sexual assaults (Christina, Aleda, Rachel, Amy, Sharona, April) involving a green van, modified curling irons, ropes, gag, and a crossbow; DNA and fingerprint evidence tied Samson and other victims to the van and implements.
- Defendants traveled together, lived out of a van with removable seats and bolt anchors; prosecution introduced a selection of 4 of 15 proffered uncharged sex offenses under Evidence Code §1108 and §1101(b) after §352 balancing.
- Defense themes: severance urged because defenses were antagonistic; challenges to admission of prior acts, fingerprint reliability (Kelly/Frye issue), certain physical-evidence inferences (carpet slits/rope), and multiple jury-instructional claims (reasonable doubt language, aiding-and-abetting/“equally guilty,” kidnapping special circumstance, no-adverse-inference instruction).
- Trial court repeatedly limited inflammatory argument during opening, admitted propensity and identity evidence after §352 analysis, declined severance, admitted fingerprint and other physical-evidence testimony, and instructed the jury with CALJIC pattern instructions; Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error and that any assumed errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of joint trial | Joint trial proper because offenses were common-events/victims and evidence cross-admissible; no prejudice from joinder. | Severance required because defenses were antagonistic and would unfairly prejudice each defendant. | Denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion; overwhelming independent evidence against each defendant defeated claim of unfair prejudice. |
| Admission of prior sexual misconduct (§1108 / §1101(b) / §352) | Prior sex offenses admissible to show propensity, intent, motive, identity, and common plan; court balanced §352 factors and limited admissions to four incidents. | Admission unduly prejudicial; evidence of uncharged acts and details should have been excluded or limited; constitutional due process violated. | Court upheld admission under §1108 and §1101(b) after §352 balancing (FALSETTA/EWOLDT framework); no federal due-process violation; limited similar incidents and explained probative value. |
| Fingerprint evidence admissibility / Kelly-Frye challenge | Fingerprint comparison long accepted; no new Kelly hearing required; experts may testify to identification; admissibility sustained. | Fingerprint science has been questioned post-Kelly; defendants sought Kelly/Daubert-type hearing and to bar identity conclusions. | California’s Kelly standard applies; fingerprint comparison is historically and presently generally accepted; no new showing justified re-evaluation; admission not prejudicial (any error harmless). |
| Jury instructions — reasonable doubt, aiding/abetting (“equally guilty”), kidnapping special-circumstance, no-adverse-inference | Instructions (including CALJIC No. 2.90 and CALJIC aiding-and-abetting) correctly stated law; trial court cured voir dire comments; given felony-murder rule and proper special-circumstance language, no reversible error. | Voir dire comments and metaphors diluted reasonable-doubt standard; “equally guilty” language could mislead jury re: differing mental states; requested pinpoint instruction on kidnapping-incidental-to-murder should have been given; objected to court giving no-adverse-inference instruction over Michaud’s objection. | Court found voir dire comments harmless in light of later correct CALJIC instructions (Victor/In re Winship); “equally guilty” language not reversible given aiding-and-abetting instruction and felony-murder/special-circumstance findings; kidnapping instruction as given correctly required an independent felonious purpose; giving no-adverse-inference instruction was permissible and harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (mutually antagonistic defenses not per se prejudicial; severance required only for unavoidable, substantial prejudice)
- Falsetta v. People, 21 Cal.4th 903 (1999) (§1108 admission of other sexual offenses requires careful §352 weighing)
- Ewoldt v. People, 7 Cal.4th 380 (1994) (similarity analysis for intent, plan, identity in uncharged-misconduct evidence)
- Coffman & Marlow v. People, 34 Cal.4th 1 (2004) (standard for reviewing denial of severance; joint trials favored)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (jury instructions must, as a whole, correctly convey reasonable-doubt concept)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions)
- People v. McCurdy, 59 Cal.4th 1063 (2014) (uncharged acts may be admitted under §1101(b) to show design/intent; §352 balancing)
- People v. Brents, 53 Cal.4th 599 (2012) (felony-murder special circumstance supported by concurrent intent to commit independent felony)