People v. Famalaro
52 Cal. 4th 1
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Denise Huber disappeared June 1991 after leaving for a concert; her body was found in July 1994 in a freezer in a rental truck connected to Famalaro.
- Forensic evidence linked Denise to the crime scene and to items found in Famalaro’s Arizona home and California warehouse, including bloodstained materials and a freezer key.
- The indictment charged first-degree murder with special circumstances (kidnapping and sodomy); the penalty phase produced a death verdict.
- Searches of Famalaro’s Arizona home and California warehouse yielded memorabilia, clothing, and tools associated with Denise’s last night and her injuries.
- DNA and DNA-related testing showed Denise’s blood could be distinguished from Famalaro’s; some tests yielded inconclusive results, prompting defense expert critique.
- The trial court admitted victim-impact testimony at the penalty phase; defenses raised issues about venue, jury selection, and various evidentiary and instructional rulings.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the death judgment after addressing issues on venue, jury selection, instructional error, admissibility of evidence, and statutory penalty framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue based on pretrial publicity | Famalaro unavailable fair Orange County trial | Venue denial biased, prejudiced jury pool | No reversible error; venue denial proper |
| Post-judgment sequestered jury voir dire | Sequestration ensures impartial jury | Individual sequestration necessary | No abuse of discretion; group voir dire permissible |
| Concealment of evidence instruction under CALJIC 2.06 | Concealment supports premeditation and kidnapping | Instruction argumentative/overbroad | Instruction correct; not error for due process |
| Victim impact evidence and ex post facto concerns | Victim impact evidence admissible; Payne controls | Ex post facto concerns if retroactive | Remains admissible; Payne applies |
| Admission of unadjudicated conduct as Aggravating factor (190.3, (b)) | Unadjudicated acts may be used to prove violence | Violation of due process/unanimity | Constitutionality upheld; permissible under California law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (2007) (venue and publicity factors for change of venue)
- People v. Davis, 46 Cal.4th 539 (2009) (voir dire and pretrial publicity in capital cases)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (requires jury finding for penalty-enhancing facts)
- People v. Morgan, 42 Cal.4th 593 (2007) (pleading sufficiency for first-degree murder no Apprendi problem)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim impact evidence admissibility in capital cases)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (extreme media influence cases; standard for prejudice)
- Odle v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.3d 932 (1982) (background for venue/publicity considerations)
- Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (victim impact and related jury instructions guidance)