People v. Parker
218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315
| Cal. | 2017Background
- In 1978–1979 six Orange County women were bludgeoned and raped; DNA testing in 1996 linked the crimes and defendant Gerald Parker to the assaults and murders.\
- Parker, a former Marine, confessed in multiple recorded custodial interviews to burglarizing and assaulting the victims but claimed voluntary intoxication, diminished capacity, and at times blackout/unconsciousness.\
- At trial Parker conceded identity but argued diminished capacity/voluntary intoxication (guilt phase) and presented psychiatric mitigation and custody-medication evidence (penalty phase).\
- A jury convicted him of six counts of first‑degree murder with special circumstances (multiple murder; murder during rape/burglary) and returned a death verdict; judgment was affirmed on automatic appeal.\
- On appeal Parker challenged (1) Batson/Wheeler claims as to two peremptory strikes of African‑American venirepersons, (2) admissibility/voluntariness of custodial statements (Miranda invocation/waiver), (3) refusal to instruct on unconsciousness, (4) victim‑impact testimony and limits on arguing future dangerousness, and (5) various challenges to California’s death‑penalty scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson/Wheeler claim re: two African‑American prospective jurors | Prosecutor exercised peremptories for race‑neutral reasons (death‑penalty views, hardship/availability, demeanor); no prima facie case | Parker argued the strikes produced systematic exclusion of Black jurors and supported an inference of discriminatory intent | Court held record did not show prima facie discriminatory purpose; reasons given were race‑neutral and explanatory facts dispelled inference of bias — no Wheeler/Batson error |
| Admissibility of custodial confessions (Miranda waiver and invocation) | State: Miranda warnings were given; Parker’s subsequent words and conduct implied a knowing, voluntary waiver; any equivocal invocation was limited and did not bar renewed questioning after readvisal | Parker: initial remarks and later statements reserved the right to remain silent; police persisted and interrogated again (different officers), so statements were obtained after invocation and should be excluded | Court held waiver could be implied from conduct and background; any invocation was not sufficiently clear or was limited to particular officers; subsequent readvisal and waiver were valid; statements admissible |
| Refusal to instruct on unconsciousness as a complete defense | N/A (prosecution) | Parker argued evidence of blackouts/unconsciousness (including references to memory gaps and head injuries) warranted unconsciousness instructions | Court held defendant’s blackout remarks were tied to voluntary drug/alcohol use and lacked expert or substantial evidence of non‑voluntary unconsciousness; no instructional error |
| Victim‑impact testimony and penalty‑phase argument limits (future dangerousness) | State: victim impact testimony admissible under §190.3 and Payne; prosecution may rebut mitigation; limits on argument of future dangerousness permissible | Parker: testimony was cumulative/unduly prejudicial; trial barred defense from fully arguing lack of future dangerousness and this impaired mitigation | Court held victim impact evidence was within permissible bounds and any challenged testimony was forfeited or harmless; trial court’s caution on future‑danger argument was harmless because defense made the medication/less‑danger argument effectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on race‑based peremptory challenges)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver principles)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (waiver of Miranda may be implied by course of conduct)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (state rule on racial discrimination in juror exclusion)
- People v. Bonilla, 41 Cal.4th 313 (framework and considerations for prima facie Batson/Wheeler showings)
- People v. Bell, 40 Cal.4th 582 (independent appellate review of record for Batson prima facie showing)
- People v. Pettingill, 21 Cal.3d 231 (pre‑Proposition 8 rule barring renewed interrogation after invocation; police may not circumvent by changing officers)
- People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714 (invocation of right to silence ends interrogation)
- In re Joe R., 27 Cal.3d 496 (contextual analysis of purported invocation of right to silence)
- People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379 (unconsciousness as complete defense; instruction required if substantial evidence)
- People v. Davenport, 11 Cal.4th 1171 (argument about future dangerousness based on past conduct may be proper)