People v. Moore
51 Cal. 4th 386
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Moore was convicted of first degree murder during burglary and robbery and sentenced to death; automatic appeal affirmed the judgment.
- Nicole Carnahan, 11, was murdered during the commission of burglary/robbery by Moore, who lived nearby.
- The crime scene showed extensive post-attack blood evidence and several items stolen from Carnahan that appeared in Moore’s trailer.
- Defense presented expert testimony of brain dysfunction potentially affecting judgment but not excusing the crime.
- Moore argued Miranda violations, improper bloodstain testimony, inadequate lesser-included offense instructions, improper degree-murder instructions, and other sentencing-related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppressing statements as Miranda custodial interrogation | Moore moved to suppress statements as custodial | Moore was not advised of rights; interrogation occurred in custody | Miranda custodial interrogation not proven; statements admissible |
| Admissibility and impact of living room bloodstain hypothetical | Prosecution relied on hypothetical bloodstain to infer pre-attack conduct | Hypothetical premise lacked evidentiary foundation | Error not prejudicial; not enough to affect verdicts given extensive other evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary and robbery | Evidence showed pre-formed intent to steal before entering Carnahan’s home | Possible spontaneous violence without pre-formed intent to steal | Substantial evidence supports burglary and robbery with felony-murder theory |
| Instructions on degree of murder and unanimity | Unanimity required on type of murder or greater/lesser offense | Pattern instructions potentially confusing; required unanimity not mandated for alternative theories | Harmless error; jury would have reached same result under proper guidance; no unanimity requirement for theories of felony murder |
| Consciousness-of-guilt instruction (CALJIC 2.03) | Instruction allowed inference of guilt from false statements | Instruction unfairly partisan and prejudicial | Instruction not unconstitutional; proper as part of evaluating consciousness of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (Cal. 2007) (standards for custody see mixed question of law and fact; deference to trial court findings; reasonable freedom to leave)
- People v. Boyer, 48 Cal.3d 247 (Cal. 1989) (police contact; when interrogation becomes custodial; need for Miranda advisements)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1977) (Miranda not required solely due to station-house setting; custody depends on restraint of movement)
- People v. Aguilera, 51 Cal.App.4th 1151 (Cal. App. 1996) (hypothetical evidence limitations; foundation required for expert opinion based on assumptions)
- People v. Richardson, 43 Cal.4th 959 (Cal. 2008) (abuses of expert hypothetical questions; 352/403 balancing; foundation for basis of expert opinions)
- People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 1998) (analysis of instructions for lesser offenses; not dispositive here)
- People v. Gunder, 151 Cal.App.4th 412 (Cal. App. 2007) (unanimity considerations for degree instructions; use of 17.40 guidance)
- People v. Pescador, 119 Cal.App.4th 252 (Cal. App. 2004) (unanimity and related instructions in degree determinations)
- People v. Kipp, 26 Cal.4th 1100 (Cal. 2001) (felony-murder theory and notice; unified view of murder elements)
- People v. Taylor, 47 Cal.4th 850 (Cal. 2009) (procedural aspects of 190.3 factors; comparative proportionality not constitutionally required)
- People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (Cal. 2009) (capital sentencing structure; consideration of aggravating factors; proportionality)
- People v. Pride, 3 Cal.4th 195 (Cal. 1992) (unanimity and degree of murder considerations; foundational principles)
- People v. Chavez, 37 Cal.2d 656 (Cal. 1951) (early unanimity considerations in homicide cases)