People v. Hensley
59 Cal. 4th 788
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Paul Loyde Hensley was convicted by jury of two first‑degree murders (with robbery‑murder and multiple‑murder special circumstances), multiple robberies, burglaries, attempted murder, and escape; firearm and great‑bodily‑injury enhancements were found true. The first penalty jury deadlocked; on retrial the second jury returned a death verdict. The Supreme Court reviews the automatic appeal of the death judgment.
- Crimes (Oct 1992): Hensley robbed an ice cream store; murdered his father‑in‑law Larry Shockley and Gregory Renouf, burglarized their homes and stole property (including checks later cashed), shot and paralyzed Stacy Copeland and robbed her, and escaped from jail days later. Hensley made multiple custodial confessions and led police to evidence; physical and forensic evidence linked him to the crimes.
- Pretrial and guilt‑phase rulings: court denied change of venue, admitted custodial statements after Miranda warnings and waivers, and overruled a Wheeler/Batson challenge to two peremptory strikes of Black prospective jurors. The CALJIC instruction on conscious possession of recently stolen property was given.
- Penalty phase: after deliberations one juror (Y.M.) telephoned his pastor during deliberations to ask about mercy/sympathy and the death penalty; the juror reported the pastor urged ‘‘render unto Caesar’’ and other biblical passages. The jury shortly thereafter returned a death verdict.
- Post‑verdict issues: the Court found juror misconduct (improper outside consultation) created a substantial likelihood of bias and reversed the death judgment, ordering retrial of the penalty phase and resentencing on all counts; other guilt‑phase rulings were affirmed. The Court also agreed sentencing errors on several subordinate noncapital counts required correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hensley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial statements (Miranda/Edwards/voluntariness) | Statements were preceded by Miranda advisals; any post‑invocation statements were either non‑interrogative or were re‑initiated and knowingly waived by defendant; confessions were voluntary. | Interrogators diluted Miranda, ignored invocation of counsel (Edwards), used deception/leniency promises, and exploited fatigue/drug impairment to render confessions involuntary. | Court upheld admission: Miranda warnings adequate, defendant reinitiated communication and knowingly waived counsel, no Edwards violation, and confession was voluntary under totality of circumstances. |
| Batson/Wheeler challenge to peremptory strikes of two Black veniremembers | Prosecution provided race‑neutral, credible reasons (demeanor, perceived rigidity, attitude toward drug evidence, temperament, concerns about juror’s ability to deliberate). | Strikes were pretextual and discriminatory; comparative juror analysis shows inconsistent treatment of non‑Black jurors. | Court affirmed: trial court credited prosecutor’s race‑neutral explanations; substantial evidence supports lack of discriminatory intent. |
| Juror misconduct during penalty deliberations (outside consultation with pastor) | Any outside religious consultation was harmless; juror did not discuss case facts and pastor’s remarks were not directive. | Juror Y.M. solicited pastor’s advice on mercy/sympathy and death penalty during deliberations in violation of instructions; pastor’s remarks contradicted jury instructions and likely influenced juror. | Court reversed death judgment: Y.M.’s call to pastor constituted prejudicial juror misconduct creating substantial likelihood of bias; penalty retrial ordered. |
| Sentencing errors on noncapital counts (consecutive terms, subordinate term calculation) | Court’s original sentencing was proper. | Section 654 bars multiple punishments for robberies that were basis of felony‑murder findings; subordinate term lengths miscalculated. | Court agreed with defendant and Attorney General that several subordinate sentences should be stayed and one subordinate term recalculated; remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (plurality) (Batson/Wheeler framework and burden shifting)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (right to counsel: questioning must cease until counsel present unless suspect initiates)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda advisals and waiver principles)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of interrogation)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (suspect‑initiated reinitiation of questioning and waiver analysis)
- People v. Danks, 32 Cal.4th 269 (juror religious consultation precedents and prejudice analysis)
- People v. Boyette, 56 Cal.4th 866 (standard for presumption of prejudice from juror misconduct)
- People v. Parson, 44 Cal.4th 332 (use of instruction on possession of recently stolen property)