People v. Scully, 486 P.3d 1029

Background

In 1995 Robert W. Scully was convicted of first‑degree murder and related offenses for the fatal shooting of Sonoma County Deputy Frank Trejo; special circumstance findings (including killing to avoid arrest, during a robbery, and killing a peace officer) were found true and a jury returned a death verdict after the penalty phase.
Key facts supporting conviction: multiple eyewitnesses placed Scully at the scene pointing a sawed‑off shotgun and witnessing the deputy shot; the deputy’s radio, gun belt and flashlight were taken; forensic and pathologist evidence supported a close‑range shot inconsistent with the defendant’s accident theory.
Scully admitted shooting the deputy but claimed the death was accidental (he fell and the shotgun discharged); defense presented expert testimony and evidence of prolonged solitary confinement impact.
Pretrial: defense moved twice for change of venue based on media publicity and submitted surveys; the trial court denied both motions after voir dire and jury selection.
Other contested trial rulings on appeal included excusal for cause of a prospective juror for equivocal death‑penalty views; admission of prior‑crime evidence, lineup‑refusal evidence, gruesome photographs, and penalty‑phase aggravating evidence; several requested jury instructions were refused or modified.
The Supreme Court affirmed convictions and the death judgment, finding the challenged rulings largely proper or any errors harmless, but remanded to strike a three‑year prior‑prison‑term enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Scully)	Held
Denial of change of venue	Local publicity was not so pervasive or inflammatory as to preclude a fair trial; jurors could follow instructions.	Pretrial publicity and survey results showed community prejudgment; venue change required.	Denial affirmed; publicity dissipated long before trial and voir dire showed jurors could be impartial.
Excusal for cause of juror with death‑penalty reservations	Juror’s equivocal answers showed substantial impairment to follow law and impose death when warranted.	Juror said death was possible; should not have been excused for cause.	Excusal upheld: record fairly supports substantial impairment.
Admissibility of prior robberies (Evidence Code §1101(b))	Prior robberies were probative of intent/common plan and not unduly prejudicial.	Prior acts were dissimilar and served only to show propensity.	Admission upheld as within trial court discretion; similarities supported intent analysis and probative value outweighed prejudice.
Admission of refusal to participate in lineup	Refusal is admissible as consciousness of guilt and probative when identity or guilt elements are in dispute.	Identity was not an issue; admission was unduly prejudicial.	Admissible: identity and other elements remained live; instruction limited the inference.
Admission of gruesome photographs	Photos relevant to corroborate events, body position, and forensic testimony; court excluded especially gruesome images.	Photographs were cumulative and unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code §352.	No abuse of discretion; photos were probative and not overly inflammatory.
Failure to give requested ‘‘accident’’ pinpoint instruction for felony‑murder/special circumstance	Instruction necessary to make clear accident negates premeditation and robbery‑murder circumstance.	Instruction misstated law by implying accident necessarily reduces to second degree despite felony‑murder theory.	Refusal proper; proposed language was incorrect and potentially confusing; any error harmless given jury findings rejecting accident.
Penalty‑phase: admission of prior violent conduct and victim impact	Admissible under §190.3 factors (a), (b), (c); photographs and multiple family witnesses appropriate.	Some evidence (photos, certain testimony) was cumulative, inflammatory, or irrelevant and prejudiced reliability of penalty decision.	Admission proper; evidence fit statutory factors, not unduly prejudicial; challenged items if any were harmless.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Odle, 32 Cal.3d 932 (Cal. 1982) (media coverage that decays over time may not require venue change)
People v. Coffman & Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004) (denial of change of venue upheld despite extensive publicity when jurors could be impartial)
People v. Rountree, 56 Cal.4th 823 (Cal. 2013) (factors for venue change and deference to trial court’s local perspective)
People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2008) (attenuation of pretrial publicity over time can cure initial prejudice)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (prospective juror may be excused if views would substantially impair duties)
People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (Cal. 2008) (reasonable‑doubt and circumstantial‑evidence instructions reviewed in context of whole charge)
People v. McCurdy, 59 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 2014) (media coverage analysis and venue denial precedent)