People v. Murtishaw
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 586
Cal.2011Background
- Defendant David Murtishaw was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death under the 1977 California death penalty law, after retrial prompted by prior reversals.
- Circumstances surroundings the murders show a desert shooting spree by Murtishaw and his associate resulting in three deaths and two more victims wounded.
- Defendant gave a tape-recorded police statement admitting the shootings but attributing memory loss and intoxication to heavy alcohol and PCP use.
- Victim-impact evidence from family members was admitted at penalty trial, detailing the emotional and financial impact of the losses on survivors.
- Defense proffered mitigation evidence included a long death-row discipline record, religious conversion, family history of mental illness, and polysubstance abuse history, suggesting potential for life without parole.
- The trial court denied certain defense requests and later rulings addressed issues related to the scope of sentencing discretion, prior penalty-phase verdicts, and the admissibility and framing of victim-impact evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction properly reflected sentencing discretion | Murtishaw argued the court should instruct that life without parole was possible even if aggravation outweighed mitigation. | The weighing instruction from the 1978 law was mandatory and a 1977-style instruction was inadequate for his case. | Instruction was correct; 1977 law required no weighing; 1978 language was not applied; no error. |
| Failure to give sua sponte instruction on prior penalty trials | Prior death verdicts should have been limited in consideration and jurors warned not to rely on prior verdicts. | The court had a duty to limit consideration of prior penalties to avoid prejudice. | No error; no sua sponte duty to give limiting instruction; Ramos-like reasoning applies. |
| Failure to give Flannel imperfect self-defense instruction at penalty phase | Imperfect self-defense evidence could be a mitigating factor and jury should be instructed as such. | Law of the case and prior rulings allow consideration of self-defense-based mitigation without a Flannel instruction. | No error; law of the case controls; existing instructions permitted mitigation of imperfect self-defense. |
| Admission and treatment of victim impact evidence | Victim impact testimony is relevant and admissible to provide context for mercy at sentencing. | Limiting instructions and 352 analysis should have curtailed prejudicial impact and limit scope. | Admissible and properly limited; no ex post facto or due process violation; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Challenges to the death penalty statute | Various statutory provisions and procedures compromise constitutionality and fairness. | Multiple challenges to 190.3 and related procedures. | Court rejects challenges; statute and procedures constitutional and consistent with precedents. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal.4th 641 (2006) (weighing not required under 1977 law; language differences matter)
- People v. Murtishaw, 48 Cal.3d 1001 (1989) (penalty retrial; framework for 1977 vs 1978 law)
- Ramos v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 1133 (1997) (limiting prior verdicts in penalty phase; jury responsibility)
- Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1 (1994) (jury's role not diminished by prior death verdicts)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (prosecutor comments cannot mislead jury about role in sentencing)
- People v. Barton, 12 Cal.4th 186 (1995) (unreasonable self-defense as a form of manslaughter; sua sponte duty)
- People v. Wickersham, 32 Cal.3d 307 (1982) (unreasonable self-defense instruction basic framework)
- People v. Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395 (2005) (discusses mitigation/ aggravation instruction standards)
- People v. Rundle, 43 Cal.4th 76 (2008) (intercase proportionality review and life-vs-death contexts)
- People v. Kennedy, 36 Cal.4th 595 (2005) (statutory factors and constitutional considerations)
- People v. Roldan, 35 Cal.4th 646 (2005) (ex post facto and death-penalty procedure considerations)
- People v. Cook, 39 Cal.4th 566 (2006) (written findings and appellate review in capital cases)
- People v. Wilson, 43 Cal.4th 1 (2008) (capital sentencing instructions and standard of review)
- People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (2008) (international norms and death penalty considerations)