People v. Lemmon CA3
C074689
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Defendants Kevin Lemmon and William (Billy) Freed were convicted by jury of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and first degree burglary; special‑circumstance findings (murder during robbery and burglary) led to life without parole for both. Freed also had weapon and prior‑felony enhancements; Lemmon received a consecutive nine‑year determinate term (later stayed in part).
- Victim Steven Johnson was stabbed multiple times after defendants (with accomplice Kenneth Matthews) forcibly entered his motel room to retrieve or take property allegedly connected to Lemmon’s girlfriend. Matthews pleaded guilty in exchange for testifying.
- Physical evidence tied defendants to the scene: a knife with the victim’s blood and Freed’s DNA on the handle; a pepper‑spray can in the room containing Lemmon’s DNA; backpacks taken from the room later given to a third party.
- Defendants challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence given heavy reliance on accomplice Matthews, (2) several trial instructions (mistake of fact, imperfect self‑defense/defense of others, aiding and abetting nuances, claim‑of‑right as to aider and abettor), (3) exclusion of underlying facts of Matthews’s misdemeanor, and (4) sentencing issues under Penal Code §654 and clerical errors.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions in all respects except it held Lemmon’s separate sentence for robbery (and attendant enhancements) must be stayed under §654; clerical errors on abstracts were ordered corrected.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/corroboration of accomplice testimony | Independent evidence (DNA on spray can, presence at lodge, flight/hiding, backpacks, knife recovery) corroborates Matthews and thus supports convictions | Accomplice Matthews was sole source of crucial facts (intent to rob, plan); without him there is insufficient evidence of intent and robbery/burglary | Court: Corroboration need only tend to connect defendant to crime; independent evidence here sufficed; convictions affirmed |
| Mistake of fact / claim of right | No mistake instruction required because forcible entry and taking would be unlawful even if defendants believed items belonged to girlfriend | Defendants: believed they were retrieving girlfriend’s property; trial court should have instructed mistake of fact or given claim‑of‑right applicable to aider/abettor | Court: Mistake/claim‑of‑right inapplicable—taking from another (even if victim not true owner) can be theft/robbery; claim‑of‑right should not have been expanded to aider/abettor; no sua sponte duty to give pinpoint instruction |
| Imperfect self‑defense / imperfect defense of others; voluntary manslaughter instruction | Defendants: trial court should have instructed on imperfect self‑defense/defense of others as voluntary manslaughter if they had an actual but unreasonable belief | People: defendants were initial aggressors and created the circumstances, so self‑defense doctrines do not apply | Court: No instruction required—evidence showed defendants were aggressors; imperfect self‑defense not available; instruction properly omitted |
| Aiding and abetting instruction nuance | People: standard CALCRIM instructions correctly stated aider/abettor law (need to prove defendant’s own mental state) | Defendants: requested clarifying instruction that aider/abettor can be more or less culpable than perpetrator; court should have given it | Court: Requested language was not a required pinpoint instruction; given CALCRIM Nos. 400 and 401 adequately instructed jury; no error |
| Admission of Matthews’s misdemeanor details on cross‑examination | People: underlying facts of Matthews’s misdemeanor were of limited probative value and potentially prejudicial/confusing | Defendants: exclusion denied effective confrontation/impeachment—should be allowed to probe facts to impeach testimony and motives | Court: Trial court acted within Evid. Code §352 discretion; misdemeanor did not necessarily bear on honesty and was remote; exclusion not reversible; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Sentencing §654 stay for Lemmon | People: robbery sentence may be imposed in addition to murder sentence where court implicitly finds multiple objectives | Lemmon: robbery sentence should be stayed under §654 because acts arose from single objective (rob/burglarize) | Court: Insufficient evidence Lemmon had a separate objective to justify consecutive robbery term; stay robbery term and attendant enhancements under §654 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alcala v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2008) (premeditation/deliberation mental‑state discussion)
- People v. Chavez, 118 Cal.App.4th 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (felony‑murder mental‑state requirement)
- People v. Luker, 63 Cal.2d 464 (Cal. 1965) (accomplice corroboration rule — need only evidence tending to connect defendant)
- People v. Szeto, 29 Cal.3d 20 (Cal. 1981) (corroboration may be slight; review limited)
- People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 1996) (§654 and multiple objectives standard)
- People v. Montes, 58 Cal.4th 809 (Cal. 2014) (when felony‑murder sole theory §654 bars separate sentence for predicate felony)
- People v. Epperson, 168 Cal.App.3d 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (prior‑conviction admission issues)
- People v. Carrasco, 209 Cal.App.4th 715 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (admissions can cover elements of enhancements under totality of circumstances)
- People v. Moore, 4 Cal.App.3d 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (taking from one who is a thief does not excuse theft)
- People v. Valencia, 43 Cal.4th 268 (Cal. 2008) (defendant who creates circumstances foreclosing self‑defense cannot claim imperfect self‑defense)