People v. Moore, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2

Moore was convicted and sentenced to death for robbing and murdering Robert and Marie Crumb in Long Beach in 1977.
His first conviction was affirmed in 1988 but later vacated in federal habeas proceedings for violating Faretta rights.
At a new trial in 1998, the jury again convicted Moore of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of robbery, and burglary, with deadly weapon enhancements and special circumstances.
The penalty phase included evidence of unadjudicated criminal activity and prior convictions to support aggravation.
Moore represented himself during parts of the guilt phase and the penalty phase, with advisory counsel and other resources provided; the trial court denied cocounsel requests.
The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment in its entirety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of cocounsel was an abuse of discretion	People contends trial court abused discretion	Moore contends denial violated Faretta and related rights	No abuse; discretion proper
Whether denial of reinstating in propria persona privileges violated rights	People argues resources provided were reasonable	Moore asserts deprivation of resources harmed defense	No due process violation; resources reasonable
Whether admission of unadjudicated conduct at penalty phase was proper	People argues factor (b) allows such evidence	Moore argues it violated due process and due procedure	Proper under law; not reversible error
Whether absence of specific jury instruction on corroboration of Accomplice testimony at penalty phase was error	People asserts not required to clarify corroboration for all charges	Moore claims improper instruction	Not reversible error; instruction adequate under Prieto and related cases
Whether jury instruction on possession of stolen items as to penalty phase was error	People argues instruction correctly framed corroboration standard	Moore argues it lowered burden for murder conviction	Harmless error under Watson standard

McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (Faretta issues and hybrid representation guidance)
People v. Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 131 (Cal. 2004) (limits on hybrid representation and cocounsel concepts)
Clark v. Arizona, 3 Cal.4th 41 (Cal. 1992) (discretion on counsel and self-representation)