People v. Frazier, 16 Cal.5th 814

Background

On May 13, 2003 Kathleen Loreck was attacked on a Concord trail, sustaining blunt-force head injuries; she was found alive but died the same day. DNA and physical evidence (sperm on vaginal/rectal swabs and defendant’s DNA on a bloodied iron bar) linked Robert Frazier to the scene. Multiple witnesses placed Frazier near the trail around the time of the assault.
A jury convicted Frazier of murder, forcible rape, and forcible sodomy and found two felony-murder special circumstances; at penalty phase the jury returned a death verdict. The trial court denied Frazier’s automatic motion to reduce the death verdict and sentenced him to death; appeal is automatic.
Major appellate claims included: excusal of a prospective juror for death‑penalty views; denial of individually sequestered (private) death‑qualification voir dire; giving a flight instruction; denial of multiple untimely Faretta (self‑representation) requests at penalty and postverdict proceedings; counsel’s presentation of mitigating evidence over defendant’s objection (Sixth Amendment autonomy); and challenges to California’s death‑penalty scheme.
The trial court excused Prospective Juror No. 111 for cause after voir dire based on equivocal answers indicating his death‑penalty views would substantially impair performance. The court denied Frazier’s requests for wholesale individually sequestered voir dire, and it instructed on flight. Multiple late Faretta/Faretta‑adjacent motions were denied as untimely or within the court’s Windham discretion.
The defense presented mitigation evidence (dysfunctional childhood, mental health/substance issues, expert testimony). The People presented prior violent convictions and victim‑impact evidence. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment in full.

Issues

Issue	People’s Position	Frazier’s Position	Held
Excusal of prospective juror for death‑penalty views	For‑cause excusal was proper; juror’s questionnaire and voir‑dire showed substantial impairment	Juror was willing to follow law and not disqualified; excusal misstates juror’s remarks	Court: affirmed excusal; substantial evidence supports finding of substantial impairment (Witt standard)
Request for individually sequestered death‑qualification voir dire	Group voir dire is permissible under Code Civ. Proc. §223; court reasonably exercised discretion	Federal and state constitutional rights required sequestered voir dire	Court: denial not erroneous; individual voir dire not constitutionally required and defendant showed no prejudice
Flight jury instruction	Instruction was appropriate where defendant was present before crime and absent shortly after; jury decides weight	No factual basis for flight (not immediate); instruction argumentative and lowers proof burden	Court: instruction proper and, if any error, harmless under Watson; evidence supported inference of flight
Denial of Faretta requests at penalty phase	Requests were untimely under unitary‑capital‑trial rule and Windham; court reasonably exercised discretion	Requests timely and unequivocal; Faretta right violated	Court: denied — motions untimely; Windham factors supported denial; no Faretta violation
Denial of self‑representation for post‑verdict proceedings (§190.4(e), sentencing)	Late requests were untimely under totality of circumstances; court did not abuse discretion	Requests were timely for postverdict matters and court improperly refused	Court: requests untimely and discretion properly exercised; denial affirmed
Counsel’s presentation of mitigation over defendant’s objection (Sixth Amendment autonomy)	Counsel may make tactical trial‑management decisions; presenting mitigation evidence is tactical	Presentation of certain mitigation (attachment theory, family comparisons, mental impairment, alleged molestation) invaded defendant’s right to choose objectives	Court: no McCoy violation; defendant lacks right to veto counsel’s tactical choices about mitigation evidence
Constitutional challenges to California death‑penalty scheme	Statute and jury instructions have been repeatedly upheld; narrowing and appellate review adequate	Statute and sentencing scheme unconstitutional in various respects	Court: rejected challenges, adhered to existing precedent; scheme deemed constitutional

Key Cases Cited

Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (standard for excluding jurors for cause based on death‑penalty views)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self‑representation when timely and knowing)
McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (defendant’s right to insist counsel not concede guilt)
Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (deference to trial court’s capital voir‑dire determinations)
Windham v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 121 (California rule on timeliness and discretion for midtrial Faretta motions)
People v. Bloom, 12 Cal.5th 1008 (timeliness standard and Windham‑framework reaffirmed)
People v. Mason, 52 Cal.3d 909 (flexibility on temporal proximity for flight inference)
People v. Carter, 36 Cal.4th 1114 (flight instruction may be proper despite absence of fixed temporal window)
People v. Poore, 13 Cal.5th 266 (counsel as trial manager; limits on defendant control over tactics)
People v. Scully, 11 Cal.5th 542 (excusal proper where juror cannot apply law conscientiously)
People v. Ramirez, 13 Cal.5th 997 (Witt/Wainwright principles and deference to trial court on juror bias)
People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (no federal constitutional requirement for individual sequestered voir dire)