People v. Scott
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 91
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with a weapon enhancement and special circumstances (murder during burglary and rape) based on a string of nighttime offenses in Riverside/Moreno Valley.
- Prior crimes included burglaries, rapes, false imprisonment, robbery, and attempted murders; multiple offenses referenced a common period and location with similar modus operandi and weaponry.
- Evidence linked defendant to the Kenny murder via statements to coworkers, investigative notes, physical items, and a semen DNA profile matching a subset of the population.
- Trial included joinder of the Kenny murder with other crimes; after pretrial denials, several counts were dismissed and a mistrial was declared on some charges; several counts remained for trial.
- Defense challenged severance, police statements, and search warrants; prosecution urged cross-admissibility and coherence of the overall plan and identity theory.
- The court affirmed the conviction, holding that joinder was proper, cross-admissibility supported by substantial similarity, and that errors claimed were not prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder/allied charges were properly admitted | Scott argues severance is required due to potential prejudice | Cross-admissibility should not justify joint trial and prejudice | Joinder proper; cross-admissibility supported; no reversible prejudice |
| Admissibility of defendant's statements to police (Miranda and voluntariness) | Statements formed part of a voluntary confession following arrest based on probable cause | Statements should be suppressed due to Miranda violation and taint | No suppression required; statements voluntary; Elstad principle applied |
| Validity of the search warrant and the adequacy of probable cause | Warrant supported by reliable informant and corroborating evidence | Affidavit lacked reliability and completeness | Probable cause supported; warrant valid; evidence properly seized |
| Sufficiency of evidence for the special circumstances (murder in the course of rape) | Evidence showed a planned, repeated rape-murder pattern with similar victims and MO | Insufficient linkage to prove the specific rape-murder nexus | Substantial evidence supports the rape-murder special-circumstance finding |
| Admissibility/impact of habit evidence and other trial evidentiary rulings | Habit and other-crimes evidence is probative of defendant's plan and intent | Some evidence was more prejudicial than probative | Rulings affirmed; probative value not outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. People, 50 Cal.4th 693 (Cal. 2010) (cross-admissibility continuum for 1101(b))
- Ewoldt v. State, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (standard for cross-admissibility; identity/plan use)
- Alcala v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2008) (cross-admissibility; similarity required)
- People v. Soper, 45 Cal.4th 759 (Cal. 2009) (cross-admissibility and prejudice factors)
- People v. Rowland, 4 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 1992) (plea raises disputed facts; relevance of intent)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 2008) (work product/attorney privilege; evidentiary limits)