People v. Spicer
186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1986 Spicer pleaded guilty to receiving Joanna Jones’s stolen Camaro; in 2011 he was charged with her 1985 murder and special-circumstance allegations (robbery, kidnapping, rape).
- Key physical evidence: Jones’s decomposed, mostly unclothed body was found in an Azusa Canyon culvert; autopsy showed fatal stab wounds. Bloodstains from the Camaro’s trunk later produced DNA linking Jones as a major contributor and including Spicer as a possible minor contributor.
- Witness evidence: a 1985 witness (Kuhnke) recalled someone called “Joe the Plumber” saying “I killed a girl and buried her,” but did not identify Spicer at trial; Spicer gave inconsistent accounts in 1985–87 vs. interviews in 2009.
- In 2009–2010 a cold‑case detective obtained new interviews, recorded calls, and modern DNA testing; prosecution used these as “new” evidence to reopen murder prosecution.
- Trial court denied Spicer’s motion to dismiss under Penal Code §654 (multiple prosecutions/unavailable-evidence exception), admitted 1974 prior sexual-misconduct evidence under Evidence Code §1108, and the jury convicted Spicer of first‑degree murder (special circumstances true). Appellate court affirms as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Spicer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy or §654 barred murder prosecution after Spicer’s 1986 receiving‑stolen‑property conviction | §654’s multiple‑prosecution rule is subject to an "unavailable evidence" exception; new evidence post‑2008 justified charging murder | Prosecution had probable cause in 1985 and thus must have charged murder then; §654/multiple prosecutions bar follows | Court: Double jeopardy did not bar prosecution; under §654 the unavailable‑evidence exception applies when prosecution lacked, despite due diligence, facts supporting an objectively reasonable belief it could obtain a conviction; new evidence satisfied that exception—no error denying dismissal |
| Admissibility of 1974 prior sexual misconduct under Evidence Code §1108 | Prior sexual misconduct is highly probative on intent/propensity in sexual‑offense prosecutions and admissible subject to §352 limits | Prior act too remote/dissimilar; current case lacks independent evidence of a sexual act so §1108 inadmissible | Court: Admission proper under §1108 (with limiting instruction); remoteness and prejudice were considered—no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (premeditation and felony‑murder theories) | DNA, inconsistent statements, witness remark, location, manner of killing, naked body all support guilt, intent, planning, and felony‑murder predicates (robbery, rape) | Evidence is circumstantial/speculative; nakedness alone does not prove sexual intent; identity and premeditation not proved beyond speculation | Court: Substantial evidence supports intentional killing, premeditation, and felony murder as to robbery and rape; kidnapping-based special circumstance invalid as a matter of law and is stricken (but harmless) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (alleged courtroom conflicts; failure to present expert on memory) | N/A (Spicer claims counsel’s conduct/failures prejudiced defense) | Counsel’s conduct reflected vigorous advocacy; errors were not prejudicial and no deficient performance shown | Court: No ineffective assistance—no deficiency or prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Davis, 36 Cal.4th 510 (Cal. 2005) (recognizes "unavailable evidence" exception to multiple‑prosecution rule under §654)
- United States v. Stearns, 707 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983) (applies unavailable‑evidence/due‑diligence analysis in sequential prosecutions)
- People v. Nelson, 43 Cal.4th 1242 (Cal. 2008) (prosecutor may defer filing charges until satisfied it can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Valli, 187 Cal.App.4th 786 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (charging decisions are prosecutorial discretion; courts won’t force joinder of all known charges)
- People v. Kelly, 42 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2007) (nakedness alone insufficient for sexual intent; need corroborating evidence but prior sexual misconduct and other facts can supply it)
- Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1966) (section 654 bars subsequent prosecution when multiple offenses known but not prosecuted together; purpose and scope of rule)