People v. Grimes
1 Cal. 5th 698
Cal.2016Background
- Gary Grimes participated in a 1995 burglary/robbery in which 98‑year‑old Betty Bone was brutally killed; John Morris admitted to stabbing and strangling the victim and later killed himself in custody. Grimes was convicted of murder with burglary/robbery special circumstances and sentenced to death.
- At trial the prosecution admitted Morris’s out‑of‑court admissions that he stabbed and strangled the victim, but the trial court excluded portions of Morris’s statements suggesting Grimes did not participate (and that Grimes/Wilson looked surprised) as non‑admissible hearsay.
- Defense argued the excluded portions were admissible under the statement‑against‑interest exception (Cal. Evid. Code §1230) and that exclusion violated Grimes’s rights to present a defense, due process, and reliable capital sentencing procedures.
- The California Supreme Court granted rehearing, concluded the trial court erred in excluding those portions under §1230 (they were part of Morris’s admission of sole responsibility), and held the error was harmless as to guilt and the special‑circumstance findings but prejudicial to the penalty phase.
- The court reversed the death judgment, remanded for a new penalty determination and resentencing, and vacated one of four prior‑prison‑term enhancements because two prior convictions had been served concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | Prosecution (Plaintiff) Argument | Grimes (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Evidence Code §1230 of Morris’s statements that Grimes did not participate and appeared surprised | Portions exculpatory of Grimes are collateral and not “specifically disserving” of Morris’s penal interest; Leach/Williamson require parsing out non‑self‑inculpatory parts | The statements are contextually part of Morris’s self‑inculpatory narrative and would be against his penal interest (he accepted sole responsibility); thus admissible under §1230 | Court held error to exclude: in context the exculpatory comments were inextricably tied to Morris’s confession and admissible under §1230 (contextual approach governs) |
| Prejudice: whether exclusion affected guilt, special‑circumstance findings, or penalty | (AG) Error harmless; prosecution’s major‑participant/reckless‑indifference evidence was overwhelming so guilt/special circumstance stand; any omission irrelevant to penalty | Exclusion undermined defense at penalty because it undercut prosecution’s portrayal of Grimes as planner/leader, so error affected sentencing reliability | Error harmless as to guilt and special circumstances (evidence of major participation and reckless indifference overwhelming). Error not harmless at penalty — reasonable possibility jury would decide differently — death sentence reversed and remanded |
| Jury unanimity required as to which overt act supported conspiracy conviction | No federal constitutional unanimity requirement as to which overt act when single offense may be committed in various ways (Schad/Russo) | Argues federal Due Process/Right to jury trial requires juror agreement on overt act | Court rejected claim: jurors need not unanimously agree on particular overt act alleged for a single conspiracy offense; Russo/Schad control |
| Unanimity on theory supporting special‑circumstance verdict (intent vs. major‑participant/reckless indifference) | Not required: single criminal event may support multiple theories; jury need not agree on precise theory (Jenkins/Schad) | Argues Sixth and Eighth Amendments require unanimity on theory for capital special circumstance | Court held no unanimity required because evidence implicated a single murder with alternative legal theories; instruction refusal not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (Confrontation/compulsory process principles relevant to right to present a defense)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (U.S. 1994) (federal rule construed to limit admission of non‑self‑inculpatory portions of a broader confession; context matters)
- People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 (Cal. 1975) (California rule that portions of a confession not specifically disserving may be inadmissible under §1230)
- People v. Lawley, 27 Cal.4th 102 (Cal. 2002) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of §1230 rulings; context and reliability required)
- People v. Duarte, 24 Cal.4th 603 (Cal. 2000) (standards for admissibility under section 1230 and reliability considerations)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (federal Due Process does not require jury unanimity on alternative theories of a single offense)