People v. Leon, 61 Cal. 4th 569

Background

Over a month in 1993 defendant Richard Leon committed a series of armed robberies across Los Angeles County, two of which resulted in murders; he was arrested after a high‑speed chase and tried alone.
A jury convicted Leon of two murders, multiple robberies and assaults, found firearm use allegations true, and found robbery‑murder and multiple‑murder special circumstances; sentence fixed at death.
At trial the prosecution introduced evidence of other alleged robberies (including two dismissed at preliminaries) under Evidence Code §1101(b), identification evidence (photo arrays, lineups, surveillance videos), and ballistics linking weapons recovered in the fleeing Jeep to shootings.
During jury selection the court used a lengthy written questionnaire and limited oral voir dire; three prospective jurors were excused for cause based on stated opposition to the death penalty without sufficient follow‑up to determine whether they could follow instructions and weigh aggravating/mitigating evidence.
The court admitted an autopsy report and testimony by a different pathologist after the original examiner died; Crawford‑era confrontation issues were raised on appeal.
The California Supreme Court affirmed guilt but reversed the death sentence, holding the for‑cause exclusion of three jurors was erroneous under Witherspoon/Witt principles and required automatic reversal of the penalty determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Leon)	Held
Adequacy of voir dire / questionnaire (death‑qualification)	Court’s written questionnaire and brief oral voir dire sufficed; jurors were informed of case‑specific special circumstances beforehand.	Voir dire was truncated; proposed questionnaire questions (esp. on multiple murder and mitigating effect of childhood abuse) should have been included to elicit bias.	No abuse of discretion in excluding proposed questions; overall voir dire adequate.
Excusal for cause of jurors opposed to death penalty	The three excused jurors expressed automatic opposition to death and thus could be dismissed.	The excused jurors’ written answers indicated they could follow instructions and weigh aggravating/mitigating evidence; the court failed to ask follow‑up to determine willingness to set aside views.	Reversed penalty: court erred in dismissing three jurors without sufficient inquiry into whether they could follow law (Witherspoon/Witt/Lockhart framework); error requires automatic reversal of penalty.
Admissibility of evidence of dismissed preliminary charges (uncharged robberies) under Evidence Code §1101(b)	The Jambi 3 robberies were relevant (same area, weapons, common plan/intention) and admissible to show intent/means; magistrate dismissal did not bar §1101(b) evidence.	Testimony about dismissed charges should be excluded because magistrate had found identification insufficient; prosecution cannot rely on dismissed charges.	Admission of evidence under §1101(b) was appropriate; magistrate’s dismissal on prelims did not preclude admissibility to prove plan/intent/means.
Confrontation Clause / autopsy report testimony	Autopsy report and testimony by a different examiner were admissible; even if error under Crawford, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	Admission of a nontestifying pathologist’s report and recitation violated confrontation rights (testimonial evidence) because declarant unavailable and no prior cross‑examination.	Even assuming potential Crawford error, it was harmless given undisputed cause of death and overwhelming identification evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1968) (standards for excluding jurors opposed to capital punishment)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (juror exclusion permitted when views would prevent or substantially impair duties)
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1986) (jurors who oppose death may nevertheless serve if willing to set aside views and follow law)
Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1987) (automatic reversal required when a juror wrongly excused for cause based on death‑penalty views)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation clause principles)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports as testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (confrontation requirements for forensic reports)
People v. Carasi, 44 Cal.4th 1263 (Cal. 2008) (voir dire procedure; informing jurors of case‑specific factors before qualification)
People v. Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (Cal. 2012) (limits on testimonial autopsy material; distinction between observations and conclusions)
People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (standards for admitting other‑crimes evidence under §1101(b))
People v. Riccardi, 54 Cal.4th 758 (Cal. 2012) (Witherspoon/Witt error and harmlessness principles)