People v. Henriquez, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69

Background

Defendant Christopher Henriquez admitted killing his pregnant wife Carmen and their daughter Zuri; he stipulated the killings were unlawful, willful and with malice but contested premeditation. A jury convicted him of two counts of first‑degree murder and one count of second‑degree murder, found a multiple‑murder special circumstance true, and returned a death sentence.
Evidence included defendant’s detailed confession, forensic injuries (strangulation, skull fractures, blows with a hammer), and his travel to New York with nearly $50,000; he also confessed to participating in two bank robberies and an earlier New York homicide/attempted robbery (the Bryant case).
Defense presented expert testimony (Dr. Donald Dutton) that the killings fit a domestic‑rage/"overkill" profile and argued impulsive, non‑premeditated homicide due to relationship dynamics and defendant’s psychiatric history; prosecution introduced evidence of prior violent acts and jail escape attempt to rebut impulsive‑rage theory and at penalty phase.
Pretrial defendant moved to quash the master jury list alleging underrepresentation of African‑Americans in Contra Costa County venires; the trial court found statistically significant underrepresentation but no proof of systematic exclusion and denied relief.
At penalty phase the prosecution introduced victim‑impact evidence, two gruesome photographs (one per victim), evidence defendant threatened to kill a guard to escape, and evidence of defendant’s prior violent crimes; defendant challenged numerous evidentiary and instructional rulings and raised constitutional challenges to California’s capital sentencing scheme.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fair‑cross‑section (jury master list)	County procedures are race‑neutral and do not cause systematic exclusion	Henriquez: African‑Americans underrepresented; selection process and follow‑up caused systematic exclusion	Underrepresentation existed statistically but defendant failed to show it resulted from systematic exclusion; motion denied (Duren prongs not met)
Admissibility of uncharged Bryant homicide to impeach defense expert	Prosecutor: prior goal‑oriented violent acts are highly probative to impeach expert opinion that killings were impulsive domestic rage	Henriquez: Bryant evidence irrelevant to Dutton’s opinion and unduly prejudicial	Trial court did not abuse discretion; prior violent crime admissible to challenge expert’s reliance and probative value outweighed prejudice
Admission of escape attempt and flight evidence at guilt phase	Prosecutor: escape/flight show consciousness of guilt and are relevant to intent	Henriquez: irrelevant because identity admitted; only mental state (premeditation) contested	Evidence admissible; consciousness‑of‑guilt evidence may bear on intent/premeditation; admission not an abuse under Evidence Code 352
Admission of victim’s out‑of‑court statement ("into heavy stuff")	Prosecution: admissible non‑hearsay to show Carmen told others and corroborate motive (defendant upset she talked about robberies)	Henriquez: violated hearsay and confrontation rights	Statement admissible for nonhearsay purpose (corroboration of motive/state of communication); no Confrontation Clause violation found
Consciousness‑of‑guilt jury instructions (CALJIC 2.03/2.04/2.52)	Instructions properly guide jurors on inferences from evasive behavior and false statements	Henriquez: duplicative/argumentative and risked improper inferences on premeditation	Instructions appropriate; not unduly argumentative and any error harmless
Prosecutorial argument on vengeance / victim‑family vengeance	Prosecutor: brief references to community vengeance and state‑administered retribution were permissible	Henriquez: prosecutor improperly invoked vengeance and family views to inflame jury	Brief, isolated references to vengeance upheld; prosecutor sustained and admonished on explicit "victims’ family" vengeance claim; no reversible misconduct
Photographs and jail‑guard killing threat at penalty phase	Photographs and escape‑threat rebut mitigation (lack of remorse; show crime consequences)	Henriquez: gruesome photos and escape‑threat unfairly inflamed jury	Admission of one photo per victim and escape‑threat testimony was within trial court discretion and relevant to penalty phase; no reversible error
Requests for separate penalty jury and individualized death‑qualification voir dire	State: Penal Code directs same jury unless good cause; voir dire procedures discretionary	Henriquez: separate jury and sequestered voir dire needed to avoid penalty‑phase prejudice	Denials affirmed: no good cause to deviate; individualized sequestered voir dire not required under state or federal law
Constitutional challenges to death‑penalty procedures (weighting, unanimity, burden)	State: existing California scheme constitutional; established precedents resolve Apprendi/Hurst concerns	Henriquez: scheme fails to narrow, requires burden/unanimity for penalty findings	Court rejected challenges as foreclosed by precedent; discretionary weighing and nonunanimous penalty procedures upheld

Key Cases Cited

Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (establishes Duren three‑prong test for fair cross‑section claims)
People v. Hendricks, 44 Cal.3d 635 (expert impeachment by other‑crimes evidence permissible)
People v. Moon, 37 Cal.4th 1 (flight/consciousness‑of‑guilt evidence admissible though identity conceded)
People v. Currie, 87 Cal.App.4th 225 (Contra Costa jury‑list underrepresentation history and analysis)
People v. Bonilla, 41 Cal.4th 313 (admission of gruesome photographs at penalty phase reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Sánchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (limits on prosecutorial vengeance argument; brief, isolated references may be permissible)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. _ (Apprendi extended to mandatory minimums)