People v. Erskine
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 86
Cal.2019Background
- Defendant Scott Erskine was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder (children Charles Keever and Jonathan Sellers, March 1993) with multiple special‑circumstance findings; jury found him guilty and a penalty retrial produced death sentences on both counts.
- Bodies found in a makeshift “fort”; autopsies showed ligature strangulation and sexual injuries; DNA later matched Erskine to sperm/epithelial samples and to cigarette butts from the scene.
- Prosecution introduced evidence of other sexual offenses (convicted 1993 assault of Jennifer M.; 1989 rape–murder of Renee Baker) under Evidence Code §§ 1101(b) and 1108; jury received limiting instructions and prior‑crime proof standard.
- Defense presented extensive mitigation and mental‑health/brain‑injury evidence (child head trauma, diagnoses including antisocial personality disorder and sexual sadism; experts differed on impairment and volitional control).
- Post‑trial and on appeal Erskine raised multiple claims: improper admission of other‑crimes evidence, erroneous excusal of a prospective juror for cause (Witt), constitutional challenges to penalty‑retrial and to California’s death penalty procedures, and erroneous penalty instructions (CALJIC No. 1.00).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other‑crimes evidence under §§ 1101/1108/352 | Prosecution: §1108 allows admission of other sexual offenses in sexual‑offense cases unless §352 exclusion warranted; prior acts were highly probative (similarity, convictions), not unduly prejudicial | Erskine: evidence irrelevant / cumulative given DNA; overly prejudicial under §352; violated due process | Court: No abuse of discretion; §1108 applies, the probative similarity (esp. Jennifer M. conviction) and limited instructions rendered admission proper under §352 and harmless to due process. |
| Excusal of prospective juror for cause (Witt) | State: juror’s questionnaire and voir dire showed views against death would substantially impair her ability to follow law; trial court properly excused her | Erskine: excusal denied his right to impartial penalty jury; juror indicated potential openness to law | Court: Trial court’s observations and equivocal responses justified finding she could not faithfully apply law; excusal proper under Witt standard. |
| Constitutionality of penalty retrial after hung jury | State: retrial permitted; precedent upholds penalty‑retrial after deadlock | Erskine: retrial violates rights to fair trial, reliability, and constitutes cruel/unusual punishment; noted quick second jury verdict | Court: Rejected; precedent permits retrial following hung penalty jury; no reason to revisit. |
| Use of empirical social‑science evidence to invalidate death penalty or require remedies | State: jurors presumed to follow instructions; empirical studies not sufficient to rebut that presumption or warrant special procedures | Erskine: presented studies (Capital Jury Project) arguing jurors do not follow guidance; sought sequestered voir dire or special questions | Court: Denied relief; evidence did not rebut presumption that jurors follow instructions; proposed remedies not required by precedent. |
| Instructional error — CALJIC No. 1.00 (“regardless of the consequences”) | State: error acknowledged but harmless in view of proper penalty instructions overall | Erskine: instruction wrongly told jurors to decide irrespective of consequences — invades the penalty choice and may have been reinforced by prosecutor | Court: Instruction was erroneous but harmless given correct instructions on weighing aggravating/mitigating evidence and presumption that jury follows instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (Witt standard for excusing jurors in capital cases)
- People v. Daveggio and Michaud, 4 Cal.5th 790 (application of Evidence Code §1108 and §352 review)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (factors for evaluating propensity evidence under §1108/§352)
- People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (discussion of §1101 and §1108 evidentiary principles)
- People v. Kipp, 18 Cal.4th 349 (harmlessness analysis for penalty‑phase instructional error)
- People v. Brown, 40 Cal.3d 512 (reasoning on CALJIC No.1.00 and consequences language)