People v. Hammons CA3, C069317

Background

In June–July 2004 Robert Hammons and Christina Martinez participated in returning to Clayton Skinner’s home to steal gemstones; Hammons fatally beat Skinner with a steering‑wheel locking device (the Club). Te.H. (a juvenile participant) later testified against them; Hammons’s fingerprints/DNA linked him to an earlier assault on Skinner.
Charges (filed June 10, 2009) included murder with special circumstance (felony murder during robbery/burglary) and related counts: first‑degree robbery, first‑degree burglary, attempted robbery (mistrial), and assault with a deadly weapon (Hammons only).
Jury convicted both defendants of murder and the non‑murder counts (except the mistrial). Hammons was sentenced to life without parole plus a one‑year weapon enhancement and an additional determinate term for assault; Martinez received life without parole. Robbery/burglary terms were imposed and stayed under §654.
On appeal, defendants challenged multiple rulings (severance, admissibility of Hammons’s statements, autopsy photos, jury instructions, prosecutorial argument, jury misconduct), and the Attorney General conceded the statute‑of‑limitations issue for the non‑murder counts.
The Court of Appeal vacated convictions, sentences, and fines for robbery, burglary, and assault because prosecution began after the three‑year statute of limitations expired; affirmed all other rulings and the murder convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Joinder of defendants / severance	Joinder proper; evidence cross‑admissible and no prejudice	Martinez: joinder violated due process because Hammons’s statements and evidence of June assault prejudiced her; Hammons joined insofar beneficial	Denial of severance affirmed; no abuse of discretion; independent evidence linked Martinez and jury instructions mitigated prejudice
Joinder of counts (June vs July incidents)	Counts were properly joined because evidence was cross‑admissible to show intent to return for gemstones	Defs: counts should be severed; evidence strength differed and risk of prejudice	Denial of severance affirmed; cross‑admissibility (June conduct probative of intent for July) justified joinder
Admissibility of Hammons’s statements (voluntariness / request for counsel)	Statements voluntary; suspect did not unambiguously invoke right to counsel	Hammons: statements involuntary and he unambiguously requested counsel; Martinez: admission violated due process as unreliable	Statements admissible: totality of circumstances showed no coercion and requests for counsel were ambiguous (re: polygraph), so no suppression; Martinez’s due process claim fails
Admission of autopsy photographs	Photos probative (force, presence of Club fragment, weapon use); admissible under Evid. Code §352	Defs: photos gruesome and unnecessary, cumulative to diagrams	Admission of exhibits affirmed as not an abuse of discretion; probative value (linking Club, showing force) outweighed prejudice
Instructional error (former CALCRIM No. 400, "equally guilty")	Instruction generally correct as given; defense failed to request modification	Martinez: wording "equally guilty" misleading and required modification	Claim forfeited for failing to request clarifying instruction; no reversible error
Prosecutorial use of graphic explaining "reasonable" inferences	Graphic not objectionable; argument within bounds; any error harmless	Defs: graphic improperly minimized beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard and was prosecutorial misconduct	Claim forfeited for failing timely objection; even if considered, any error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt given strength of evidence
Jury misconduct (card to victim’s family)	No misconduct; no evidence the card affected deliberations	Defs: card showed sympathy/bias and trial court should investigate	No prejudicial misconduct shown; court did not abuse discretion in declining further inquiry
Statute of limitations for robbery, burglary, assault	AG concedes those counts time‑barred; prosecution began June 10, 2009, >3 years after 2004 offenses	Defs sought reversal on statute‑of‑limitations ground	Convictions, sentences, and fines for counts 2, 3, 5 vacated because prosecution commenced after three‑year limitations period

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (right to counsel must be unambiguous to invoke interrogation protection)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (coercive police activity is necessary predicate for due‑process involuntariness finding)
People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (2003) (voluntariness requires causal link between coercion and confession)
People v. Katzenberger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1260 (2009) (using visual aids to explain beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt can be dangerous and may constitute misconduct)
People v. Centeno, 60 Cal.4th 659 (2014) (prosecutorial argument using suggestive descriptions to illustrate beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt may be prejudicial misconduct)
People v. Hajek, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (2014) (standards for severance and joinder; prejudice required to show abuse)
People v. Myles, 53 Cal.4th 1181 (2012) (joinder favored; review for abuse of discretion)
People v. Mills, 48 Cal.4th 158 (2010) (admission of gruesome photos reviewed for abuse under Evid. Code §352)