People v. Garton
229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 624
Cal.2018Background
- Defendant Todd Garton was convicted by a Shasta County jury of first‑degree murder of his wife Carole and her viable fetus, conspiracy to murder his wife and fetus, and conspiracy to murder Dean Noyes; special‑circumstance findings led to a death verdict. The Court reverses only the conspiracy to murder Dean conviction for lack of territorial jurisdiction and affirms all other aspects of the judgment.
- Prosecution theory: Garton led and facilitated a paid‑assassin scheme called “The Company,” recruited accomplices (Norman Daniels, Dale Gordon) and co‑conspirator Lynn Noyes, provided a target package and logistical support, and aided Daniels in the May 16, 1998 killing of Carole; emails and computer evidence corroborated communications with companyt@usa.net.
- Key guilt‑phase evidence: accomplice testimony (Daniels, Lynn, Gordon) describing planning, purchase/possession of the murder weapon, the target package, pager messages, and Garton’s post‑murder statements; Office Max and business‑card/receipt evidence; e‑mail drafts on Garton’s computer.
- Defense: Garton denied involvement in plotting Dean’s murder and Carole’s killing; presented testimony and evidence of a loving marital relationship and disputed the provenance/meaning of purchases and contacts; he argued accomplice statements were self‑serving and required corroboration.
- Trial and penalty phase: multiple evidentiary and instructional disputes (wedding ring prohibition, courthouse security bypass, admission of coroner testimony, use of a CALJIC conspiracy instruction variant, sufficiency/corroboration of accomplice testimony); jury returned death sentence; appeal was automatic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of request to wear wedding ring (civilian attire / demeanor) | Ring irrelevant; security concerns justified prohibition | Ring relevant to demeanor/credibility and equal‑protection (in‑custody disadvantage) and right to present defense | No constitutional error: absence of ring not equivalent to prison garb; trial court acted within discretion under Evid. Code §352; harmless re: defense presentation |
| Courthouse security bypass for prosecutors’ investigators | Bypass proper because officers authorized to carry weapons; no prejudice | Bypass created appearance of special credibility and violated presumption of innocence | No error: record shows jurors likely unaware; jury instructions on witness evaluation cure any appearance problem |
| Confrontation clause (coroner testimony relying on predecessor’s autopsy report) | Comfort’s testimony admissible expert reliance on photos/reports; any hearsay was limited and harmless | Testimony relayed Harrison’s out‑of‑court, testimonial autopsy statements without cross‑examination (Crawford violation) | Some of Comfort’s recitations were testimonial hearsay but any Crawford error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given uncontested cause/manner of death and other evidence |
| Territorial jurisdiction over conspiracy to murder Dean (Buffum rule) | Evidence of planning and acts in CA (weapons, loading car, departure for Oregon) sufficed as attempt within CA so Buffum satisfied | Under Buffum, in‑state acts must independently constitute attempt — Garton’s CA acts were only preparatory; attempt occurred in Oregon | Reversed conspiracy conviction as CA acts did not, under Buffum and attempt precedent, satisfy overt‑act/attempt element; conviction lacked territorial jurisdiction |
| CALJIC No. 8.69 variant instructional error (conspiracy intent requirement) | Instruction was proper | Instruction misstated elements by requiring specific intent of only "at least two" conspirators, risking conviction without proving Garton’s own intent | Error acknowledged but held harmless for conspiracies re: Carole and fetus because jury’s true findings on special circumstances and aiding/abetting necessarily proved Garton’s specific intent; no need to address Dean conspiracy (reversed on jurisdiction) |
| Corroboration of accomplice testimony (Pen. Code §1111) | Accomplice testimony corroborated by receipts, e‑mail evidence on Garton’s computer, pager records, recorded statements | Testimony was uncorroborated and self‑serving; insufficient to convict | No error: independent corroboration (gun purchase receipt/testimony, e‑mail evidence, pager log, defendant’s recorded statements) sufficiently connected Garton to crimes |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (defendant may not be compelled to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes)
- Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (defendant entitled to have guilt determined on evidence presented, not custody status)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause bars testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent witness unavailability and prior cross‑examination)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Buffum, 40 Cal.2d 709 (Cal. 1953) (California courts’ territorial‑jurisdiction rule for conspiracies to commit out‑of‑state crimes)
- People v. Decker, 41 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2007) (slight‑acts rule: clearly shown intent may make slight acts an attempt; concerted action increases urgency for intervention)
- People v. Morante, 20 Cal.4th 403 (Cal. 1999) (overruling Buffum prospectively; courts have jurisdiction over in‑state conspiracies to commit out‑of‑state offenses)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (expert may rely on hearsay to form opinion but case‑specific out‑of‑court statements offered for their truth are hearsay)