People v. Huggins
185 Cal.Rptr.3d 672
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In June–July 2010 George Scott Huggins Jr. and Althea Housley committed two Oakland robberies; Huggins shot one victim (Gomez) and killed another (Kang).
- Housley pleaded to a reduced sentence in exchange for testifying against Huggins at trial (accomplice testimony).
- Larry Houser, an in-custody informant who spoke with Huggins in adjacent jail cells, testified in exchange for a reduced sentence that Huggins admitted the shootings.
- Prosecution also presented surveillance video, Housley’s fingerprint at the July scene, and ballistics linking casings from both robberies.
- Huggins was convicted of murder (Pen. Code §187), attempted second-degree robbery, two second-degree robberies, true firearm enhancements, and a robbery-murder special circumstance; sentenced to LWOP plus consecutive determinate terms with 25-to-life firearm enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an accomplice and an in‑custody informant may corroborate each other under §§1111 and 1111.5 | Prosecution: statutes permit corroboration; §1111.5 does not limit accomplice corroboration | Huggins: §1111.5’s reference to §1111 and rule that one accomplice may not corroborate another implies accomplice and in‑custody informant cannot corroborate each other | Court held they may corroborate each other; refusal to give requested instruction was correct |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing CALCRIM No. 224 (general circumstantial-evidence instruction) and giving CALCRIM No. 225 instead | Prosecution: case relied principally on direct testimony (accomplice, informant, victims) so CALCRIM 224 not required | Huggins: substantial reliance on circumstantial evidence required CALCRIM 224 | Court held CALCRIM 224 was not required because direct evidence predominated; any error was harmless |
| Whether determinate terms were properly calculated given indeterminate firearm enhancements | People: two determinate terms should be one-third of middle term under §1170.1 | Huggins: (no contrary position noted) | Court ordered modification: designate count 3 principal term; reduce base terms for counts 2 and 4 to one-third of middle term |
| Whether conduct credits and parole-revocation fine were proper | People: murderer not entitled to conduct credits under §2933.2; parole-revocation fine proper when any determinate term with parole exists | Huggins: contested conduct credits award; argued parole fine improper because LWOP | Court reduced conduct credits to exclude conduct days per §2933.2 and upheld suspended parole-revocation fine |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (1994) (one accomplice may not corroborate another)
- People v. Williams, 16 Cal.4th 153 (1997) (in‑custody informant may corroborate an accomplice)
- People v. Hovarter, 44 Cal.4th 983 (2008) (credibility challenges for witnesses are generally for the jury)
- People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal.4th 610 (2011) (when prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence the court must give CALCRIM No. 224)
- People v. Contreras, 184 Cal.App.4th 587 (2010) (CALCRIM 224 corresponds to former CALJIC instruction and is more inclusive than CALCRIM 225)
- People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (2008) (parole-revocation restitution fine required when sentence includes a period of parole)