People v. Lee
51 Cal. 4th 620
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Lee was convicted of first degree murder with personal use of a firearm, with a special circumstance for murder during an attempted rape, and sentenced to death after a penalty phase.
- The crime occurred February 21, 1996; Mele Kekaula, intoxicated, was killed after Lee allegedly attempted to have sex with her at a Moreno Valley lookout, with Jarrod Gordon and Devin Bates as witnesses.
- Multiple gunshots were fired by Lee at close range; the murder weapon (a .22 Beretta) was never recovered, but shell casings were found near the body and Lee’s fingerprints were later located on a car trunk and in his home.
- Lee carried a loaded handgun that night and reloaded after Jarrod fired shots earlier at a lookout; his conduct included fondling Mele and attempting intercourse against her will.
- After the murder, Lee allegedly boasted about his actions, singing and making statements linking his nickname Point Blank to the killings; Devin Bates later identified Lee as the man introduced as Point Blank.
- During trial, the defense presented evidence of brain damage and psychiatric history, and the prosecution introduced prior juvenile misbehavior and a 1995 misdemeanor assault plea as aggravating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder and the rape-based special circumstance | People contend evidence supports premeditated murder and the attempted rape theory. | Lee argues evidence is insufficient to prove premeditation or attempted forcible rape beyond a reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence supported both premeditation and the attempted-rape theory. |
| Adequacy of consent instructions in attempted rape | People maintain the consent definition followed CALJIC 1.23.1 and Amendments; no misinstruction. | Lee argues passive assent could indicate consent and that the court should have clarified that passive acquiescence may still negate nonconsent. | Instructions were adequate; no sua sponte duty to elaborate on passive assent; no reversible error. |
| Admission of defendant's nickname evidence | People argue nickname evidence aids identity and shows intent to kill in a manner tied to Point Blank. | Lee contends nickname was prejudicial character evidence with little probative value beyond identity. | Admission was valid: highly probative of intent and premeditation and its prejudicial effect was contained; no reversible error. |
| Penalty phase evidentiary rulings on juvenile misconduct and misdemeanor plea | People argue admissible under 190.3, factor (b), and that the misdemeanor plea supports identity; additional juvenile acts are proper aggravation. | Lee contends these admissions violate substantive due process and Eighth Amendment constraints or were improperly broad. | Admission of juvenile acts and the misdemeanor plea evidence were proper and harmless in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (Cal. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Guerra, 37 Cal.4th 1067 (Cal. 2006) (definition and elements of attempted rape; premeditation considerations)
- People v. Mayfield, 14 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1997) (premeditation and deliberation framework for first degree murder)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003) (standard for evaluating credibility and sufficiency on appeal)
- People v. Whisenhunt, 44 Cal.4th 174 (Cal. 2008) (penalty phase instructions and mitigation framework; no mandatory unanimity)