People v. Potts
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2
| Cal. | 2019Background
- Thomas Potts was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of grand theft for the brutal August 1997 killings of Fred and Shirley Jenks; jury found two special circumstances (multiple murder and robbery-murder) and returned a death verdict.
- Physical and forensic evidence tied Potts to the scene: blood mixture on his glasses matching Fred Jenks, Potts’s missing watch found under Fred’s body, Nike-pattern bloody shoeprints consistent with shoes Potts owned, and substantial jewelry taken from the Jenkses’ bedroom; Potts pawned some jewelry on August 5 before the bodies were discovered.
- Potts had owned a hatchet (seen by witnesses and stopped with it months earlier); a hatchet-type wound pattern and knife injuries were present; evidence supported sexual assault of Shirley Jenks.
- Defense emphasized gaps and alternative theories (no forced entry, no bloody clothing or hatchet recovered at the apartment search, limited direct scene evidence tying Potts to the murders); mental-health mitigation and prior convictions were presented at penalty phase.
- Trial court imposed death, a $10,000 restitution fine, and a 4‑year determinate term based on elderly-victim enhancements; on appeal the Supreme Court of California affirmed the convictions and death sentence but struck the 4‑year determinate term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for premeditation and felony‑murder | Evidence (weapon possession, motive to steal, manner of killings, post‑crime pawning) supports premeditation and that murders occurred during robbery | Evidence was consistent with a spontaneous rage or after‑acquired intent to steal; prosecution failed to exclude reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient for both premeditation/deliberation and robbery‑murder; convictions upheld (Jackson standard applied) |
| Reasonable‑doubt instruction & prosecutor remarks | CALJIC No. 2.90 and prosecutor’s rebuttal comments properly framed reasonable doubt; jurors instructed to follow court | Instruction and prosecutor’s comments diluted burden; prejudicial misconduct | No reversible error: instruction valid; remarks not reasonably likely to mislead jurors; forfeiture of claim for lack of timely objection also applied |
| Admission of detective’s readout of Galloway interview (hearsay/Confrontation) | Testimony and in‑court availability of Galloway meant no Confrontation Clause violation; any hearsay error was harmless | The investigator’s report admission violated hearsay rules and confrontation | No Confrontation Clause violation because declarant was available for cross; any statutory hearsay error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Penalty‑phase and sentencing issues (victim‑impact, jury unanimity on unadjudicated acts, restitution fine, elderly‑victim enhancement) | Penalty instructions and evidence admissibility proper; restitution fine and elderly‑victim determinate term proper | Argued instructional, unanimity, and evidentiary errors; trial court improperly relied on erroneous probation report for restitution; elderly‑victim enhancement inapplicable to murder | Rejected penalty‑phase and instruction claims; restitution fine error (relying on inmate‑work assumption) found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; four‑year determinate term for elderly‑victim enhancement stricken because enhancement does not apply to murder counts as charged |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (review of sufficiency of evidence standard)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (abiding‑conviction language acceptable for reasonable‑doubt instruction)
- People v. Daveggio and Michaud, 4 Cal.5th 790 (discussing reasonable‑doubt instruction and review standard)
- People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (robbery‑murder inferences from taking substantial property)
- People v. Salazar, 63 Cal.4th 214 (evidence of arriving with a weapon supports planning/premeditation)
- People v. Jurado, 38 Cal.4th 72 (premeditation and deliberation framework)
- People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (analysis of manner of killing and premeditation)
- People v. Cortez, 63 Cal.4th 101 (prosecutor comments on reasonable doubt evaluated in context)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (consideration of motive and depravity in weighing intent to steal)