People v. Livingston
53 Cal. 4th 1145
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Defendant John Myles and codefendant Rogers were convicted of first‑degree murder with special circumstances for Ricky Byrd’s death and sentenced to death; Myles also convicted of Pepper Steak Restaurant robbery/murder with handgun use findings.
- A separate Byrd murder occurred nine days before the Pepper Steak incident; the two sets of charges were joined for trial, with guilt phases bifurcated to limit prejudice.
- Evidence linked the Byrd killing to a .380 round found at the scene and in a motel room; ballistics tied bullets to rounds found with Myles’s fingerprints/clothing, and a Lorcin .380 handgun was recovered in a car tied to the Pepper Steak investigation.
- Eyewitness identifications and multiple witnesses placed Myles at the Pepper Steak scene; Rogers confessed to involvement as well, with testimony about the抢 involved in the robbery.
- Pretrial rulings joined the crimes, denied severance, but ordered bifurcated guilt phases; later the court denied another severance request and allowed a single jury to hear both sets of charges.
- Defense challenged lineup procedures, voir dire and courtroom conduct, including the presence of a victim’s spouse during guilt and possible mitigation phases; some issues were resolved in defendant’s favor, others were not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder and severance of Byrd and Pepper Steak charges | Joint trial efficient; cross-admissible evidence; no prejudice | Joinder causes spill‑over prejudice; severance required | No abuse; bifurcated guilt phase minimized prejudice; joinder upheld |
| Ski mask lineup and eyewitness identification procedures | Pretrial lineup aided identification; lineup undercut by later request | Need for ski‑mask lineup to mirror scene | No reversible error; due process not violated |
| Denial of substitution of counsel (Marsden) | Effective representation; no irreconcilable conflict | Counsel ineffective due to irreconcilable relationship | No abuse of discretion; no irreconcilable conflict shown |
| Imposition of upper term enhancements based on non‑jury findings | Enhancements proper under applicable law given facts | Facts used for upper term not found by jury | Cunningham/Blakely error; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; abstract corrected |
| Victim impact and courtroom presence of victim’s spouse | Victim impact evidence proper aggravation; presence allowed | Presence and sympathy could bias jurors | Evidence properly admitted; no reversible prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 617 (Cal. 1974) (pretrial lineup due process standard; discretion of trial court)
- Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (U.S. 2007) (Sixth Amendment requires jury findings for upper terms)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (statutory maximum defined by facts found by jury or admitted)
- Sandoval v. California, 41 Cal.4th 824 (Cal. 2007) (Harmless error analysis for improper upper-term enhancements)
- People v. Mendoza, 24 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2000) (severance and joinder balancing test; prejudice vs. efficiency)
- People v. Soper, 45 Cal.4th 759 (Cal. 2009) (cross-admissibility as factor in severance decision)
- People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 2007) (constitutional limits on upper-term sentencing)
- People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 1998) (mitigating/ aggravating factors not fatally vague)