People v. Russell
50 Cal. 4th 1228
| Cal. | 2010

Background

  • Kurt to 1998: jury convicted Russell of the murders of Riverside County Deputies Haugen and Lehmann, plus firearm-use enhancement and two special circumstances; penalty phase retrial resulted in death verdicts on both counts.
  • Defendant’s violent domestic history and prior drug/alcohol issues were admitted, with evidence of volatility and threats during marriage.
  • Defendant’s M‑1 rifle and ammunition were recovered; gunshot residue linked to him; he initially denied but then described deteriorating marriage and intoxication.
  • During guilt phase, defendant made statements to police; defense presented witnesses on character and intent, including handling of firearms and training limitations.
  • Penalty retrial featured extensive victim impact testimony, additional forensic firing analyses, and testimony about defendant’s behavior and mental health history.
  • Court affirmed death judgment and discussed numerous trial rulings, including jury instruction challenges, admissibility of statements, and jury deliberation issues.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Adequacy of lying‑in‑wait instruction for first‑degree murder People contends instruction proper; substantial waiting not fixed time. Russell argues waiting must be substantial and instruction misstates law. Instruction adequate; substantial waiting not required by fixed time; evidence supports lying‑in‑wait theory.
Denial of jury view of shooting scene during guilt/penalty phases People supports denial; viewing unnecessary given evidence of lighting and aim. Russell argues view would aid questioning of lighting/visibility affecting intent. No abuse of discretion; viewing not required; evidence sufficed and any error harmless.
Judicial questioning of Juror No. 8 during deliberations Court properly investigated potential deliberation misconduct to protect integrity of verdict. Court's questions intruded on deliberations and coercively influenced jurors. Court’s limited inquiry permissible; no reversible error; no coercion found.
Consciousness of guilt instruction CALJIC No. 2.03 at penalty phase Evidence of inconsistent statements supports instruction as probative of consciousness of guilt. Instruction improper; infers guilt from denial without enough linkage to conduct. No error; substantial evidence of false statements; error harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Admission of videotaped statements at penalty phase under Green Statements relevant to lingering doubt/remorse; highly reliable. Self‑serving, uncorroborated hearsay; unreliable; Green not satisfied. Statements properly excluded as unreliable hearsay; no constitutional error.

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Cruz, 44 Cal.4th 636 (2008) (lying‑in‑wait elements; timing considered not critical)
  • People v. Moon, 37 Cal.4th 1 (2005) (substantial waiting not fixed time; waiting may be brief)
  • People v. Ceja, 4 Cal.4th 1134 (1993) (lying‑in‑wait elements; duration not fixed)
  • People v. Edwards, 54 Cal.3d 787 (1991) (substantial waiting need not be long; time not critical)
  • People v. Hardy, 2 Cal.4th 86 (1992) (lying‑in‑wait as equivalent to premeditation)
  • People v. Ruiz, 44 Cal.3d 589 (1988) (lying in wait as proof of premeditation)
  • People v. Avila, 38 Cal.4th 491 (2006) (excusal of jurors based on questionnaire responses; Witherspoon/Witt standard)
  • Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (no unanimity required on theory of murder (elements vs. means))
  • Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (elements vs. means distinction discussed with Schad)
  • Jurado, 38 Cal.4th 72 (2006) (Green/Hearsay in penalty phase; reliability concerns)
  • Lang, 49 Cal.3d 991 (1989) (Robertson instruction when uncharged crimes not the focus)
  • Robertson, 33 Cal.3d 21 (1982) ( Robertson instruction on uncharged crimes; Robertson standard)
  • Poggi, 45 Cal.3d 306 (1988) (pertains to uncharged crimes evidence)
  • Carrington, 47 Cal.4th 145 (2009) (state of mind evidence; used to support consciousness of guilt)
  • Avena, 13 Cal.4th 394 (1996) (Robertson instruction harmless if not reasonably probable)
  • People v. Brown, 46 Cal.3d 432 (1988) (harmless error standard in penalty)
  • People v. Burney, 47 Cal.4th 203 (2009) (CALJIC 8.85 adequacy; not error to not specify mitigating absence)
Read the full case