People v. Parkinson CA2/2
B310482
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 26, 2022Background
- In August 1980 Stephanie Sommers was raped and murdered in her apartment; the case went cold.
- Biological evidence (sexual-assault kits) reexamined in 2004 and 2018 yielded male DNA; a 2014 comparison matched Harold Parkinson’s reference buccal sample to sperm/DNA recovered from Sommers.
- Parkinson was indicted (murder, rape-murder special circumstance, weapon enhancements), tried, convicted of first-degree murder, found true on the special circumstance and weapon allegations, and sentenced to life without parole plus enhancements.
- At trial the court excluded defense proffered third‑party culpability evidence regarding Dennis Castro, admitted multiple out‑of‑court statements by the victim about her sexual orientation under the state‑of‑mind and declaration‑against‑interest exceptions, and overruled an objection to certain prosecutorial closing remarks.
- On appeal Parkinson argued (1) erroneous exclusion of third‑party evidence, (2) erroneous admission of hearsay (victim’s statements), (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and (4) cumulative error; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding any errors harmless in light of overwhelming DNA evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Parkinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of third‑party culpability evidence (Dennis Castro) | Exclusion proper because defendant’s proffer did not link Castro to the homicide; proffer was speculative and of minimal relevance. | Castro was at the victim’s apartment shortly before the murder and knew facts about the killing, so his involvement should have been presented to raise reasonable doubt. | Court: Exclusion was proper (no direct/circumstantial link to the killing); alternatively exclusion under Evid. Code §352 was within discretion; any error harmless given DNA evidence. |
| Admission of victim’s statements about sexual orientation under hearsay exceptions | Admission proper under Evid. Code §1250 (state of mind) and §1230 (declaration against social interest); statements were relevant to consent and trustworthy. | Statements were not state‑of‑mind or against social interest and therefore inadmissible hearsay. | Court: Admission was within trial court’s discretion (statements relevant to consent/state of mind and sufficiently trustworthy/socially disadvantageous); any error harmless. |
| Prosecutorial remarks in rebuttal (suggesting defense offered no evidence/witnesses) | Remarks were fair comment on the state of the evidence and did not shift burden; permissible to note defense produced no supporting witnesses. | Comments improperly shifted burden and (given defendant was sole witness to a prior relationship) violated Griffin. | Court: Remarks were permissible commentary on evidence and did not shift burden; even if erroneous, any error was harmless. |
| Cumulative error / due process claim | No prejudicial errors; overwhelming forensic proof of identity and rape/murder. | Combined errors rendered trial fundamentally unfair and require reversal. | Court: No cumulative error—either errors did not occur or were harmless; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Young, 7 Cal.5th 905 (Cal. 2019) (third‑party culpability must link third person to the crime)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (motive/opportunity alone insufficient to show third‑party culpability)
- People v. Hall, 41 Cal.3d 826 (Cal. 1986) (third‑party evidence treated like other evidence; admissible if relevant)
- People v. DePriest, 42 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2007) (remote connection to victim/crime scene insufficient)
- People v. Geier, 41 Cal.4th 555 (Cal. 2007) (evidence showing only motive/opportunity is inadequate to raise reasonable doubt)
- People v. Griffin, 33 Cal.4th 536 (Cal. 2004) (state‑of‑mind hearsay admissible to prove future conduct or explain acts)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (defendant’s right to present a defense subject to evidentiary rules)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (limits on third‑party culpability evidence under state rules do not violate due process if rationally applied)
- People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229 (Cal. 1997) (distinguishing permissible comment on the evidence from impermissible burden‑shifting)