People v. Price
214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Nov. 2009 Kiarra Price, Kendra Fells and Teareney Brown were implicated in the robbery and fatal shooting of Benjamin Merrill; Price was tried for murder and robbery while Fells and Brown entered plea deals resolving to voluntary manslaughter (and related counts) and agreed to testify.
- Fells (pleaded Aug. 2010) admitted possessing the gun, testified at prelim and trial implicating Price in the robbery and shooting; Brown’s plea was later modified after Price’s trial.
- Evidence included Fells’s eyewitness testimony, text messages between Price and Fells, forensic and phone-location data showing Price in possession of Merrill’s iPhone, FasTrak records, surveillance of reactivation of the phone, and other corroboration.
- The jury convicted Price of first‑degree murder and robbery, found the robbery‑murder special‑circumstance true, but rejected enhancements alleging Price personally used/discharged a firearm or inflicted great bodily injury; Price was sentenced to life without parole.
- Price appealed asserting (inter alia) due‑process violations from allegedly inconsistent prosecutorial positions (pleas to voluntary manslaughter for co‑defendants vs. murder prosecution of Price), improper use of an uncharged conspiracy theory, vagueness / insufficiency of the robbery‑murder special‑circumstance instruction, improper flight instruction, prosecutorial vouching for Fells, and sentencing error (parole‑revocation fine).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Price) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Prosecutor’s plea bargains with co‑defendants vs. trying Price for murder — due process | Plea deals were supported by the evidence known at the time; securing pleas and testimony against the more culpable defendant was proper and not an admission of a single fixed factual theory | Pleas to voluntary manslaughter for Fells/Brown were legally and factually irreconcilable with prosecuting Price for murder and deprived Price of due process | No due process violation: voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder and not inherently irreconcilable; factual positions were justified by differing evidence and risks, and any inconsistency was not prejudicial (Sakarias standard) |
| 2) Use of uncharged conspiracy theory / instructing on conspiracy liability | California law permits proving an uncharged conspiracy to show liability for substantive offenses; courts have long allowed such theories and instructions | Conspiracy cannot be used as a basis for substantive liability absent a conspiracy charge; §§31 and 971 do not authorize 'uncharged conspiracy' liability | Rejected Price’s challenge; follow controlling Supreme Court authority (Valdez, Lopez): prosecution may pursue conspiracy theory even if conspiracy is uncharged |
| 3) Robbery‑murder special circumstance — vagueness and sufficiency (major participant + reckless indifference) | The statute and the court’s instruction (including definition of "reckless indifference") provide adequate guidance; Banks/Clark refine but do not require different constitutional instructions; evidence supported finding | The terms "major participant" and "reckless indifference" are too vague and can collapse into ordinary felony‑murder, failing to narrow class eligible for LWOP; Banks/Clark require more specific guidance and may defeat sufficiency | Instruction and statute not unconstitutionally vague; Estrada controls on definition of reckless indifference; Banks/Clark do not mandate additional constitutional wording; substantial evidence supports the special‑circumstance finding (jury could find Price the killer or a major participant with required culpability) |
| 4) Alleged prosecutorial vouching and flight instruction error | Prosecutor properly disclosed plea terms and impeachable incentives; questions were based on the record; CALCRIM No. 372 is constitutionally permissible and not argumentative | Prosecutor vouched for Fells’ truthfulness (invoked office prestige); flight instruction improperly suggested flight shows guilt and lowered burden of proof | No prosecutorial vouching: claims forfeited by failing to object and, on the merits, questioning about plea terms is permissible so long as it does not present extra‑record assurances; CALCRIM No. 372 is proper and does not alleviate burden; any error would be harmless. Parole‑revocation fine struck as improperly imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sakarias, 35 Cal.4th 140 (2005) (due‑process framework for inconsistent prosecutorial theories; requires bad faith/unjustified inconsistency that causes prejudice)
- People v. Rios, 23 Cal.4th 450 (2000) (discusses when voluntary manslaughter instruction is required and relation between murder and lesser included offenses)
- People v. Bryant, 56 Cal.4th 959 (2013) (voluntary manslaughter requires intent to kill or conscious disregard for life; distinguishes mitigating circumstances)
- People v. Valdez, 55 Cal.4th 82 (2012) (uncharged conspiracy may be presented to prove substantive liability and jury may be instructed on conspiracy theory)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (clarifies ‘‘major participant’’ and ‘‘reckless indifference’’ standards for felony‑murder special‑circumstance review; lists non‑exclusive factors)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (applies Banks‑style analysis to reckless indifference; explains types of evidence relevant to non‑killer culpability)
- People v. Estrada, 11 Cal.4th 568 (1995) ("reckless indifference to human life" is adequately defined as knowingly engaging in criminal activity involving a grave risk of death)
- People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894 (1998) (limits on prosecutorial vouching; disclosure of plea terms and testimony incentives is permissible when based on the record)
- People v. Williams, 56 Cal.4th 165 (2013) (reading plea terms and eliciting that witness must testify truthfully does not constitute improper vouching)