People v. Eubanks, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 795

defendant Susan Dianne Eubanks killed her four children on October 26, 1997, and was sentenced to death after a guilt phase and a penalty phase trial.
Guilt phase evidence showed multiple gunshot wounds to Brandon (14), Austin (7), Brigham (6), and Matthew (4), all killed with a .38 revolver; notes were found in defendant's room after the shootings.
Pretrial and trial evidence included extensive testimony on defendant's drug and alcohol use, firearms, and relationships with Dodson and others surrounding the case.
During the penalty phase, prosecution and defense presented contrasting expert and lay testimony about defendant's responsibility, danger, and mitigating factors.
The defense raised various pretrial and evidentiary challenges, including jury prescreening procedures, searches of the residence, and qualifications of expert testimony, all of which the court addressed.
The court affirmed the death judgment, holding no reversible error in the challenged issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
forfeiture of pretrial jury screening challenges	People: defendant acquiesced and failed to object in trial court	Eubanks: screening violated cross-section rights and due process	forfeited; no reversible error on merits
sufficiency and interpretation of English-language proficiency standard in jury eligibility	People: language proficiency is a valid neutral criterion under CCP 203	Eubanks: criterion vague and discriminatory against Hispanics	not unconstitutional; valid permissible neutral criterion
overbreadth and adequacy of dominion and control language in search warrants	People: warrants sufficiently described items to show dominion and control	Eubanks: language overly broad and omits material facts	language sufficiently particularized; warrants upheld
admissibility and framework for rebuttal expert Dr. Spiehler under Kelly	People: Kelly not applicable; testimony reliable and helpful	Eubanks: testimony based on novel/doubtful methods requiring Kelly	Kelly not applicable; testimony properly admitted
admissibility of feces incident and related evidence in penalty phase	People: evidence relevant to rebut defense on parenting and character	Eubanks: 352 weighs prejudice; other mitigating evidence inconsistent	evidence properly admitted; not unduly prejudicial

People v. Ervin, 22 Cal.4th 48 (2000) (forfeiture of trial-prescreening objections)
People v. Visciotti, 2 Cal.4th 1 (1992) (acquiescence doctrine in jury selection)
People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (2000) (standards for expert testimony)
People v. Nicolaus, 54 Cal.3d 551 (1991) (particularity of warrants for occupancy evidence)
Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976) (particular description of items in warrants)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (scope of searches with warrants following homicide)
Stoll, 49 Cal.3d 1136 (1989) (Kelly rule applicability to expert testimony)
People v. Loker, 44 Cal.4th 691 (2008) (penalty phase evidence admissibility)
Ramos, 15 Cal.4th 1133 (1997) (jury selection and pretrial issues)
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) (heightened reliability in capital sentencing)
Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976) (reliability and admissibility of new scientific techniques)