People v. Virgil
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 465
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Virgil was convicted of murder during a doughnut shop robbery and of two additional robberies; one incident involved a knife and the other an assault with intent to cause great bodily injury, with a robbery/murder special circumstance finding.
- Evidence showed Lao was stabbed 30 times in a restroom during the Donut King murder; the defense did not present guilt-phase evidence and the jury convicted on all counts.
- A lengthy guilt-phase trial included extensive eyewitness identifications and later cross-witness testimony about the same defendant’s presence and demeanor at the crime scenes.
- During the penalty phase, the People introduced victim impact evidence and other misconduct/uncharged-crimes evidence; the defense offered mitigating evidence including testimony about Virgil’s upbringing.
- The court imposed an electronic stun belt for security during the penalty phase after a pretrial incident suggesting escape risk, which the court found to be the least intrusive means to ensure security.
- The court upheld the death sentence, rejecting constitutional, procedural, and proportionality challenges to California’s death penalty scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to presence at proceedings | Defendant was deprived of presence at bench conferences and certain proceedings, improperly affecting defense. | Presence was required at those proceedings and the deprivation prejudiced the defense. | No reversible error; presence not required for routine bench conferences and no prejudice shown. |
| Cause challenges for alternate jurors | Court erred in denying cause challenges to John B. and Janice S. given their conflicting death-penalty views. | Court should have disqualified jurors with unalterable death-penalty views; cross-examination limits improper. | No error; substantial evidence supported the court’s rulings; challenges properly denied. |
| Admission and handling of victim photographs | Photographs aided eyewitness identification and corroboration of testimony. | Autopsy-and-life photos juxtaposed could be unduly prejudicial. | Admission proper; no abuse of discretion; 352 balancing showed probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Penalty phase instructional error | Omissions in reinstruction and doubts about reasonable doubt burden affected penalty outcome. | Need for reinstruction on evidentiary standards and burden of proof at penalty. | Harmless error; no reasonable probability the result would differ; no reversal. |
| Intercase proportionality and death-penalty framework | California's death-penalty framework operates constitutionally and allows the jury to weigh aggravating/mitigating factors. | System is unconstitutional in multiple respects and requires reforms or reversal. | System constitutional; intracase proportionality review performed; no reversal on proportionality grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (Cal. 2000) (independent review of trial court's decision on presence and proceedings)
- People v. Ochoa, 26 Cal.4th 398 (Cal. 2001) (Sixth Amendment/public-trial and cross-examination considerations in voir dire)
- People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 1997) (limits on cross-examination; admissibility of evidence; standard of proof for prior acts)
- People v. Medina, 11 Cal.4th 694 (Cal. 1995) (preponderance standard for uncharged conduct used to prove identity or intent)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2003) (intracase proportionality and death penalty standards)