People v. Wall (Randall)
224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861
Cal.2017Background
- Defendant Randall Wall pleaded guilty to two first-degree murders, multiple special-circumstance allegations, robbery, burglary, and related conspiracies; jury later found weapon allegations true and imposed death at penalty phase. Appeal to California Supreme Court was automatic.
- Facts: Wall and codefendant Rosenquist entered the Orens’ home (March 1, 1992); Rosenquist sexually assaulted the child J.D.; both victims were killed by blunt and sharp force trauma; defendants fled in the victims’ car which was later burned.
- Wall gave recorded San Francisco interviews in which he made inculpatory statements; portions were played at guilt and the full tapes were admitted at penalty phase. Several jailhouse informants also testified about Wall’s admissions.
- Jury selection: Wall was absent during parts of voir dire, the exercise of peremptory challenges, and the swearing-in because of injuries from an in-custody assault; he orally waived presence but did not sign a written waiver required by statute.
- Procedural/penalty-phase issues included: alleged coerced confession admissibility, exclusion of an early conditional plea offer as mitigating evidence, statutory waiver/formal waiver of presence, challenge to excusal of a prospective juror for cause (Witt), and imposition of a $10,000 restitution fine without considering ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absence from jury selection / waiver statutory vs. constitutional | State: Wall validly waived constitutional right to be present; any statutory written-waiver omission harmless | Wall: Medical condition undermined voluntariness; statutory sections 977/1043 required written waiver | Waiver was valid for constitutional purposes; failure to obtain written statutory waiver violated §§977/1043 but error was harmless under Watson standard |
| Excusal for cause of prospective juror (Witt) | State: Juror E.J. showed inability/uncertainty to impose death and could be excused | Wall: E.J. similar to other jurors who could keep open mind; excusal denied impartial jury | Court: Substantial evidence supported excusal — juror repeatedly said she didn’t know she could impose death; no constitutional error |
| Voluntariness of confession admitted at penalty phase | State: Statements encouraging truth-telling and future life were not causally linked to confession; totality shows voluntariness | Wall: Detectives’ promise of "start fresh" and appeals to safety/coercion rendered confession involuntary | Court: Independent review found promise did not cause confession; confession voluntary and admissible as aggravating evidence under §190.3(a) |
| Exclusion of early conditional plea offer as mitigation | State: Trial court properly excluded under Evidence Code §352 because admission would confuse jury and invite second-guessing DA’s plea decisions | Wall: Early plea shows remorse and is admissible under §190.3(k) and Lockett right to present mitigating evidence | Court: Exclusion under §352 was within discretion and not a Lockett violation; any error would be harmless because jury knew Wall pleaded guilty before trial |
| Restitution fine and Apprendi challenge | State: Fine within statutory framework; any reconsideration is for court, not jury | Wall: Trial court failed to consider ability to pay; Apprendi requires jury to find facts increasing penalty | Held: Remand required to reconsider fine (court failed to consider ability to pay); Apprendi does not require jury determination for restitution fine amount in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (defendant’s presence at critical stages; voir dire is a critical stage)
- People v. Jackson, 13 Cal.4th 1164 (validity of waiver of presence; statutory written-waiver requirement)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (standards for voluntariness and causal link for promises of leniency)
- People v. Linton, 56 Cal.4th 1146 (confession admissibility principles; recorded interrogation review)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (Eighth Amendment right to present mitigating evidence)