People v. Peterson, 472 P.3d 382

Background

Defendant Scott Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder (Laci Peterson) and second-degree murder (their unborn son Conner); jury found multiple-murder special circumstance and returned a death verdict at penalty phase.
Extensive pretrial publicity; venue changed from Stanislaus to San Mateo; later motion to move to Los Angeles denied.
During capital jury selection, ~1,500 venire members completed questionnaires; the court excused numerous prospective jurors for cause based on questionnaire answers indicating opposition to the death penalty without follow-up voir dire.
Trial evidence included circumstantial proof tying Peterson to the Berkeley Marina, forensic and behavioral evidence, and limited dog-scent trailing evidence (Trimble) that a dog trailed from Laci’s sunglasses to a marina pier; most other dog-trailing evidence was excluded.
The trial court admitted hydrology expert opinion estimating likely origin for Conner’s body and excluded a defense videotaped boat-dumping demonstration; jurors later inspected and manipulated Peterson’s boat during deliberations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Death-qualification excusals for cause	People argued excusals were proper given jurors’ expressed opposition to death penalty	Peterson argued many jurors were removed solely on questionnaire responses (Q109) despite stating they could impose death in some cases (Q115); court failed to probe substantial impairment	Court: Excusal of at least 13 jurors based only on questionnaire opposition violated Witherspoon/Witt; death sentence reversed and penalty phase remanded
Change of venue denial	People contended San Mateo was adequate and further transfer futile because publicity was nationwide	Peterson argued pervasive pretrial publicity ineligibly tainted juror pool and Los Angeles would be less prejudiced	Court: Denial of second change of venue was not an abuse; sufficient impartial jurors were empaneled after rigorous voir dire
Admissibility and instruction on dog-scent trailing	People maintained Trimble’s trailing at Berkeley Marina was admissible with proper foundation and CALJIC No. 2.16 properly limited use	Peterson argued Kelly hearing required, foundation insufficient, instruction biased toward inculpation	Court: No Kelly hearing required; Malgren/Jackson foundational showing satisfied for marina trailing; CALJIC No. 2.16 proper and not misleading
Jury conduct / evidence exclusion and experiments	People argued exclusion of defense videotape and prosecutor comments were proper; juror inspection of boat was permissible	Peterson argued exclusion of defense demo and prosecutor comments were prejudicial; jurors’ rocking of boat was improper experimentation requiring mistrial	Court: Exclusion of defense video was within Evidence Code §352 discretion; prosecutor’s closing remarks not misconduct; jurors’ inspection/manipulation of admitted boat was permissible and did not constitute misconduct

Key Cases Cited

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) (prospective jurors may not be excluded for cause solely because they voice general objections to death penalty)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (juror may be excused for cause only if views would prevent or substantially impair performance of duties in accordance with instructions and oath)
Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (1987) (Witherspoon-Witt error in juror exclusion is not subject to harmless-error analysis; reversal required)
People v. Riccardi, 54 Cal.4th 758 (2012) (California precedent recognizing automatic reversal for erroneous Witherspoon-Witt exclusions)
People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (2016) (dog-scent trailing evidence admissible without Kelly hearing if proper case-by-case foundation established)
Kelly v. State, 17 Cal.3d 24 (1976) (threshold reliability inquiry for novel scientific techniques)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (pretrial publicity, even pervasive, does not automatically require venue change; prejudice presumed only in extreme cases)