People v. Foster, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 658

Background

Foster was convicted of first degree murder (with special circumstances), second degree burglary, and second degree robbery; sentenced to death with restitution ordered.
DNA and blood evidence tied defendant to the crime scene, including a DNA profile matching defendant with a frequency of about 1 in 24 million Caucasians.
Purse, jeans, tissue, and wallet linked to the victim were found in a mine shaft with other items disposed by Foster; victim’s vehicle found at a nearby store.
Evidence showed prior offenses involving robbing and assaulting women in office settings, introduced to show intent/common design; defense challenged similarity and inflammatory nature.
Defendant challenged trial conduct: shackling and leg restraints, voir dire adequacy, and admission of prior-crimes evidence; these issues frame both guilt and penalty phases.
Penalty phase involved aggravating/mitigating factors, including unadjudicated prior activity, victim impact considerations, and the court’s preinstruction to jurors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of prior crimes for intent or identity	The prior offenses show a common plan and intent.	Not sufficiently similar; highly prejudicial.	Yes; admissible for intent/design, with proper limiting instruction.
Burden of proof on identity with respect to charged offenses	Identity can be proven by many means; defendant’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt.	Identity burden not adequately imposed; risk of misapplication.	Identity burden properly applied; no due process violation.
Shackling and restraints during trial	Restraints necessary given escape history.	Visible restraints violate confrontation and due process.	Harmless where jurors did not observe restraints; no due process violation.
Preinstruction and articulation of death penalty options to jurors	Clarifies penalty framework; informs jury of two options.	Preinstructions may mislead about parole and appellate roles.	No reversible error; instructions adequately guided weighing of aggravation and mitigation.
Cross-examination scope regarding prior similar crimes	Impeachment and verification of prior acts necessary for credibility.	Scope exceeded; violating defense rights.	Proper impeachment scope; no abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Duran, 16 Cal.3d 282 (1976) (restrictions on courtroom restraints in jury presence; manifest need required)
Deck v. Missouri, 546 U.S. 622 (2005) (use of physical restraints must be justified by state interest)
Tuilaepa v. California (I), 4 Cal.4th 569 (1992) (voir dire guidance; individual/sequestered questioning)
Tuilaepa v. California (II), 512 U.S. 967 (1994) (death penalty considerations and factors; due process concerns)
Frye v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 894 (1998) (burden of proof for identity and use of uncharged crimes)
Medina, 11 Cal.4th 694 (1995) (evidence of other crimes to prove knowledge/intent under certain standards)
Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (1994) (standard for admissibility of uncharged misconduct re: intent, design, identity)
Alcala v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1205 (2008) (limits on using other crimes to prove identity; retroactivity considerations)
People v. Soper, 45 Cal.4th 759 (2009) (guidance on admissibility of prior acts to prove intent/identity)
Gatlin v. Mills, Mills (citation used in text) (2010) (burden of proof at penalty phase and nonunanimous aggravators)
People v. D'Arcy, 48 Cal.4th 257 (2010) (Blakely/Ring/Apprendi implications not controlling penalty framework in California)
People v. Taylor, 47 Cal.4th 850 (2009) (guidance on mitigating/aggravating factor weighing and no requirement for written findings)
People v. Arias, 13 Cal.4th 92 (1996) (weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors; standard guidance)
People v. Robinson, 37 Cal.4th 592 (2005) (voir dire adequacy and questions; limits on inquiry)
People v. Demetrulias, 39 Cal.4th 1 (2006) (considerations of probative value vs prejudice for prior acts)