People v. Simon
1 Cal. 5th 98
| Cal. | 2016Background
- In 1999 a Riverside jury convicted Richard Simon of multiple crimes: first‑degree murders of Vincent Anes and Sherry Magpali (with multiple special‑circumstance allegations), second‑degree murder of Michael Sterling (with personal firearm use), rape and kidnapping of Magpali, and related firearm‑possession counts. A second penalty jury returned a death sentence.
- Physical and forensic evidence tied Simon to the Anes/Magpali murders: 9mm casings/projectiles matched a gun later found in Simon’s possession in January 1996; DNA from sperm on Magpali matched Simon; carpet fibers on Magpali matched an associate’s car. Simon was also linked to Sterling’s killing by a .22 firearm found in his residence after his May 1996 arrest.
- Pretrial and trial security: the court required Simon to wear a remote‑controlled stun belt during both guilt and penalty phases based on jail incidents (fights, discovery of shanks, alleged bomb‑making materials) documented by deputies.
- At the penalty phase the prosecution introduced aggravating evidence (prior jail misconduct, threatening letters); the defense presented mitigation evidence including family testimony and expert testimony of significant organic brain damage from prior gunshot injuries.
- On appeal Simon raised numerous challenges (stun belt, warrantless blood draws/DNA, severance of charges, failure to instruct on imperfect self‑defense, victim‑impact evidence/instructions, rebuttal evidence scope, limits on penalty‑phase argument, and constitutional challenges to California’s death penalty scheme); the Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of stun belt | State: court may impose reasonable security for courtroom safety based on record | Simon: stun belt violated manifest‑need rule; was excessive and visible; court applied lower standard | Affirmed — court identified specific jail incidents showing a manifest need and used a less restrictive device than shackles; no abuse of discretion |
| Warrantless blood draws / DNA | State: blood draws lawful under probation search condition; alternatively exigent circumstances or inevitable discovery | Simon: nonconsensual, warrantless draws violated Fourth Amendment and state law; DNA should be suppressed | Harmless error if any — even if draws exceeded scope, abundant independent evidence (gun linked to murders) made inevitable discovery/new lawful draw likely; conviction stands |
| Severance of counts (Anes/Magpali joined with Sterling) | State: joinder proper; evidence strong on both incidents; trial safeguards (instructions) sufficient | Simon: joinder prejudicial — inflammatory sexual killing joined with gang‑related homicide; risk of spillover and capital‑case conversion | Affirmed — no clear showing of prejudice; both cases strong; jury differentiated (first vs second degree verdicts) so no gross unfairness |
| Failure to instruct on imperfect self‑defense (Sterling count) | Simon: evidence supported an actual but unreasonable belief of imminent harm, requiring instruction | State: insufficient evidence of defendant’s honest fear or that Sterling was aggressor | Affirmed — record lacked substantial evidence of Simon’s subjective fear; trial court properly declined instruction |
| Victim‑impact evidence scope/admission | State: Payne permits victim‑impact; testimony described relationships and effects, and matched §190.3 factor (a) | Simon: testimony was excessive, emotional, and prejudicial; should be limited or excluded; constitutional vagueness challenge | Affirmed — claim largely forfeited for lack of contemporaneous objections; evidence admissible and not unduly prejudicial under Evid. Code §352 or federal due process |
| Victim‑impact jury instructions | State: CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85 adequate | Simon: court had sua sponte duty to give a limiting Koskovich‑style instruction | Affirmed — defendant forfeited request; existing instructions sufficient under precedent |
| Prosecution rebuttal letter (threats to wife) | State: admissible rebuttal to defendant’s good‑character mitigation evidence | Simon: improper rebuttal, prejudicial, exceeded scope | Affirmed — prosecutor may rebut generalized good‑character mitigation; admission was within trial court’s discretion |
| Limiting defense comparisons in penalty argument | State: court reasonably limited comparisons to notorious criminals but allowed the central mitigation argument | Simon: restriction violated right to effective argument and misapplied law | Affirmed — court has broad discretion to limit scope; defendant could still argue he was not among "worst of the worst" |
| Challenges to death‑penalty statute/process | State: existing statute and procedures constitutional as applied | Simon: various Eighth/Fourteenth/Sixth/Fifth Amendment challenges | Rejected — court reiterated longstanding precedents upholding CA capital procedures and §190.3 framework |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mar, 28 Cal.4th 1201 (2002) (stun‑belt standards and limits on restraints in courtroom)
- People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, 60 Cal.4th 335 (2014) (courtroom security discretion and due‑process constraints)
- People v. Duran, 16 Cal.3d 282 (1976) (manifest‑need standard for physical restraints)
- People v. Combs, 34 Cal.4th 821 (2004) (possession of shanks as justification for restraints)
- People v. Medina, 11 Cal.4th 694 (1995) (reliability of law‑enforcement representations supporting restraints)
- People v. Mayfield, 5 Cal.4th 142 (1993) (trial court may misstate standard yet apply proper concept overall)
- People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal.4th 610 (2011) (joinder and inflammatory gang evidence analysis)
- People v. Alcala, 43 Cal.4th 1205 (2008) (preference for joinder and severance standards)
- People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (2000) (duty to instruct on lesser included offenses)
- People v. Manriquez, 37 Cal.4th 547 (2005) (imperfect self‑defense instruction requires substantial evidence)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (victim‑impact evidence admissible in capital sentencing)
- People v. Rodriguez, 42 Cal.3d 730 (1986) (scope of rebuttal character evidence)
- People v. Romero and Self, 62 Cal.4th 1 (2015) (victim‑impact objection/forfeiture principles)