People v. Rountree
56 Cal. 4th 823
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Charles R. Rountree was convicted of first-degree murder with kidnapping and robbery special circumstances and sentenced to death after a penalty trial.
- Diana Contreras was kidnapped at a Bakersfield mall with codefendant Mary Elizabeth Strader, robbed, transported to a remote location, and murdered.
- Evidence showed rapid ATM withdrawals, theft of Diana’s belongings, and a firearm involved; a Winchester rifle was found in the car with Strader.
- Rountree gave two confessions to Deputy Giuffre, which were redacted to remove Strader references; the jury heard a redacted version.
- Pretrial publicity in Kern County included articles and two marches; the court denied multiple change-of-venue motions.
- During penalty, mitigation included character witnesses and a psychologist; victim impact evidence was admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in denying a venue change? | Publicity threatened fairness in Kern County | Venue should have been changed due to pervasive publicity | Not reasonably likely the defendant could not receive a fair trial |
| Was the redacted confession admissible and did it prejudice Stroder or Rountree? | Redaction deleted only co-defendant references and did not distort guilt | Redaction misrepresented events and precluded cross-examination | Redacted confession admissible; no prejudice in guilt phase |
| Were photographs and victim-impact evidence admissible at penalty and guilt phases? | Photographs and victim-impact testimony illuminate premeditation and harm | Photographs overly prejudicial | Photographs and victim-impact evidence properly admitted; not prejudicial |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict of kidnapping given possible consent? | Evidence showed nonconsensual entry or coercion and PIN use | Entry may be voluntary; insufficiency | Sufficient evidence supported kidnapping conviction |
| Were jury instructions valid on the felony-based special circumstances and heat-of-passion issues? | Instructions accurately tracked law on independent felonious purpose | Needed heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction; improper scope | Instructions correct; no duty to give heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Famalaro, 52 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2011) (test for change of venue and prejudice on review)
- People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (Cal. 2007) (publicity, community size, and juror impartiality considerations)
- People v. Beames, 40 Cal.4th 907 (Cal. 2007) (evidence and weighting in death penalty review)
- People v. Livingston, 53 Cal.4th 1145 (Cal. 2012) (intracase proportionality review and sentencing factors)