THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD BRUCE MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S065467
Supreme Court of California
Nov. 10, 2011
1056
Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Denise Kendall, Assistant State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon, Sharlene A. Honnaka, John R. Gorey, Karen Bissonnette and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
BAXTER, J.—A jury convicted defendant Ronald Bruce Mendoza of first degree murder (
Because the trial court had no authority to strike a special circumstance found by the jury, we reinstate the lying-in-wait special circumstance. As so modified, the judgment of death is affirmed.
I. FACTS
A. The Guilt Phase
At approximately 1:30 a.m. on May 11, 1996, defendant shot Pomona Police Officer Daniel Tim Fraembs in the face and killed him. The evidence included the testimony of an eyewitness to the shooting, defendant‘s pager found at the crime scene, testimonial and physical evidence linking defendant to the purchase of the murder weapon and ammunition, and telephone conversations between defendant and his mother, tape-recorded with court approval.
1. The Prosecution Case
Defendant, also known as “Boxer,” was a member of the Happy Town street gang. In November 1995, defendant was released on parole from a California Youth Authority facility (CYA facility; now Division of Juvenile Facilities). As two of the conditions of parole, he was not to possess any deadly weapon and was not to knowingly associate with gang members. Defendant was informed that violation of a parole condition could result in his return to a CYA facility, where he would face 575 days, plus an additional one year in custody for possession of a weapon. Defendant signed a form stating he understood the parole conditions.
Testimony from Jason Meyers and Dean Coleman established that about two weeks before Officer Fraembs‘s murder, Meyers drove defendant to Coleman‘s residence, where defendant purchased a Haskell .45-caliber handgun from Coleman for $150 or $155. Meyers agreed to buy bullets for the gun, because defendant did not have the required California driver‘s license or identification card to do so. They went to a Big 5 Sporting Goods store, where Meyers used defendant‘s money to purchase a green and yellow box of Remington .45-caliber bullets.
Johanna Flores was 19 years old at the time of the 1997 trial. Her nickname was “Goon,” but she did not belong to any gang. Flores had been in a romantic relationship with defendant and was with him when he shot
Flores testified that on May 10, 1996, after her work shift ended at 11:00 p.m., she went with Chantal Cesena to the Pomona home of a Happy Town gang member named “Tank,” where Flores saw defendant and another gang member named Jasper. Defendant wore black jeans, a white shirt, and a black bomber-style jacket with orange lining, small pockets, and a front zipper. Defendant, Flores, Jasper, and Chantal Cesena sat talking together for a while. At some point, Chantal Cesena received a call from her relative, Joseph “Sparky” Cesena, asking her to pick him up.2 Chantal declined, saying she had to do something else.
At a later point, defendant and Flores argued over a page defendant received from Brandy Valore, the mother of his child. Flores punched defendant on his left side, hitting a gun tucked into his waistband. Flores saw the gun when defendant removed it from his waistband to check it. She had seen defendant with this gun before; he said it was a .45-caliber gun.
After things calmed down between defendant and Flores, they both spoke with Sparky by telephone. Defendant and Sparky agreed to meet by the railroad tracks, and Flores decided to go along. When they left Tank‘s house, defendant was carrying his gun and his pager.
On their way to the railroad tracks, defendant and Flores encountered a man and two women (Jason Meyers, Cherie Hernandez, and Elva Arambula) who were walking from the opposite direction. When one of the women (Hernandez) gave defendant a cigarette and lit it for him, Flores got mad and cursed and slapped defendant.3 The two groups separated, and defendant and Flores continued toward the railroad tracks. As they neared the tracks, Sparky appeared from a small pathway through some bushes. Sparky wore gray khaki pants, a white shirt, and a gray and black striped sweater. He had a knife.
As the three walked back to Tank‘s house, a bright light turned on behind them. Defendant looked over his left shoulder and said, “Oh, shit, the jura.” “Jura” means “cops.” A police car stopped behind them, and Officer Fraembs exited the vehicle. Defendant said, “Oh, shit. I got the gun.” Flores told
Officer Fraembs asked, “How are you guys doing tonight?” Flores described Fraembs as “real nice” and not like other police officers who were mean or sarcastic. She thought Fraembs might have stopped them “for curfew check, nothing major.” Defendant responded to Fraembs‘s inquiry with “an attitude,” saying something like, “What the hell are you stopping us for” or “What are you stopping us for.” Defendant was being “rude” and “a jerk.” At that point, Fraembs told defendant and Flores to “have a seat right there,” indicating the curb. He called Sparky, who was wearing a knife sheath and was nearest to him, over to the patrol car. Sparky put his hands on the hood, and Fraembs stood behind him.
As Officer Fraembs started patting down Sparky, defendant slowly moved behind Flores and draped his left arm over her shoulder while leaving his right hand free. Defendant was standing very close behind Flores, with his chest against her back, and leaning forward as they moved toward the street. He slowly pushed her forward, forcing her to step off the curb into the street. Flores felt defendant slide his hand down between himself and the small of her back as he continued to move her toward Fraembs, who was still patting down Sparky. When they got within six or seven feet of Fraembs, defendant pushed Flores aside.
At that point, Flores turned back to look at defendant and saw him with his arms stretched out and both hands holding the gun. He took another step or two toward Officer Fraembs, and pointed the gun at the officer‘s upper body from a distance of about two and a half feet. Defendant fired once, shooting Fraembs in the face.
Immediately afterward, defendant turned the gun on Flores and asked, “Are you going to say anything?” Flores replied, “No, I didn‘t see nothing, I didn‘t hear nothing, I don‘t know nothing.” Flores took defendant‘s threat seriously, and when he repeated his question, she repeated she did not hear, see, or know anything.
Defendant told Flores to run, then he took off running. Flores started running behind defendant, but soon lost sight of him. Defendant did not look back at Flores and did not wait for her to catch up to him. Sparky had already run away, back toward the bushes from which he had earlier emerged.
As Flores ran, she began hearing sirens and ran faster. She reached her home, but did not sleep. She did not call 911 or the police to report the shooting, because she was afraid defendant and his gang would do something to her. At sunrise, Flores told her sister what had happened.
Later that day or the following day, Flores told her parents what happened. Her father spoke with their family priest, Father Charles Gard, who offered to speak with Flores. On May 15, 1996, Flores told Gard about the shooting and defendant‘s involvement. She was “very upset” and “very distraught,” yet “very confident in what she was saying.”4 Gard persuaded Flores to talk to the police.
Two homicide detectives interviewed Flores at Father Gard‘s church. At first Flores did not tell the detectives about Chantal and Jasper being at Tank‘s house before the shooting. Chantal was Flores‘s good friend and Flores did not want anything to happen to her. Flores was also afraid that Jasper might do “something” if she said he was there. But even though Flores had been threatened by both defendant and his brother, she ultimately decided to testify because she believed that what defendant did was wrong, and that he had had the chance to run away but did not do so. At Flores‘s request, however, the Pomona Police Department relocated her and her family.
Evidence at the crime scene corroborated Flores‘s testimony and statements. Officer Fraembs was found shot in the face, with his gun secured in its snapped-shut holster and his baton still attached to his belt. A spent shell casing was on the ground about 12 feet from the body, and an expended bullet lay in the grass about 40 to 50 feet away. A senior criminalist with the sheriff‘s department testified that the casing was made by Remington Peters and designed for a .45-caliber semiautomatic weapon, and was consistent with the expended bullet. The criminalist‘s examination of these items indicated that the projectile could have been fired from a Haskell .45-caliber semiautomatic weapon. Additionally, defendant‘s pager was found at the scene.
In a search of defendant‘s residence, police found a green and yellow Remington .45-caliber ammunition box bearing a Big 5 Sporting Goods price tag in the bedroom occupied by defendant‘s mother and Harry Lukens. The box contained one .32-caliber bullet and an otherwise empty plastic ammunition tray, on which defendant‘s left thumbprint was found. A black nylon
Defendant made incriminating statements after the murder. He initially sold the murder weapon to Joseph Silva for $100, telling him, “Hey, did you know I killed a cop?” Defendant later decided to get the gun back and told Silva, in a police-recorded telephone conversation, “I‘m gonna have somebody come and pick it up from you man . . . . I can‘t have that in Pomona.” Around that time, a Happy Town gang member named “Casper” warned Silva that he and his entire family would be killed if Silva were to testify that defendant admitted shooting a police officer. Defendant‘s brother Angel retrieved the gun from Silva.
While defendant was in custody, the court approved the recording of his telephone conversations with his mother, Lola Delgado. On May 22, 1996, defendant told his mother to burn a certain jacket. Although the statements in that conversation were not entirely clear, defendant apparently was referring to the jacket he wore the night of the murder, a black and orange jacket with tiny pockets. On May 24, 1996, defendant told his mother he wanted “Goon” (Flores) to be told she “better realize what she‘s doing.” After complaining that Goon was “suppose to be gang” but “now she‘s fucking crumbling down,” defendant told his mother, “we gotta do something” because “if she‘s a witness, I‘m gonna be gone.” Defendant also warned that “as far as she‘s willing to go, the police ain‘t going to protect her.”
2. The Defense Case
Rupert Bascomb, a private security guard, testified he was on duty at a company at the time and near the scene of the murder. He observed a police car cruise by “real slow” and then drive out of sight. Shortly thereafter, Bascomb heard a gunshot and then a woman‘s voice say, “Let‘s get out of here” or “Let‘s move from here.” He thought he saw two possibly male figures wearing dark clothing run toward an incinerator behind a building. One had something in his hand.
The defense sought to undermine Johanna Flores‘s credibility and to establish her bias against defendant. It also argued that if the jury believed defendant was the shooter, it should find he did not act with premeditation. Finally, the defense contended that Officer Fraembs did not act lawfully when he stopped and detained defendant, Sparky, and Flores.
1. The Prosecution Case
The prosecution presented evidence that on July 30, 1994, Ryan Schultz and his girlfriend drove to a house in Pomona to smoke marijuana and “get high” with some friends. While Schultz was inside the house, more than 10 gunshots were fired outside. Schultz went outside and saw that his brand new 1994 Ford Thunderbird had been “shot up.” Three or four individuals, including defendant, were standing by Schultz‘s car, and defendant was holding an M-1 military rifle. Schultz ran back into the house, followed by defendant and his companions. Defendant used his rifle to hit Schultz in the face and on the side of the head. Schultz fell to the ground and was beaten. Afterward, defendant “basically” told Schultz to “get the fuck out [of] the house before we kill you.” Schultz suffered injuries to his head, face, and arms; his jewelry and money were taken.
The prosecution also presented victim impact testimony from Officer Fraembs‘s adoptive mother and sister, and from two police officers who had worked and formed close friendships with him.
2. The Defense Case
Defendant‘s aunt testified regarding defendant‘s family and his care by his grandparents while his mother was in prison. His aunt was “very surprised” to learn of his involvement in the killing of a police officer, and asked the jury to consider defendant‘s daughter and family.
Brandy Valore, the mother of defendant‘s baby daughter, testified she was first attracted to defendant because he had “good manners” and was “real polite, very intelligent.” Valore said defendant loved his daughter and asked the jury to spare his life for his daughter‘s sake.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of Premeditated and Deliberate Murder Evidence
Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of premeditated and deliberate first degree murder. This claim is without merit for the reasons below.
In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury‘s finding of premeditated and deliberate murder, a reviewing court considers the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine
“‘A verdict of deliberate and premeditated first degree murder requires more than a showing of intent to kill. [Citation.] “Deliberation” refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action; “premeditation” means thought over in advance. [Citations.]’ (People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080.) “Premeditation and deliberation can occur in a brief interval. ‘The test is not time, but reflection. “Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.““” [Citation.]’ (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 849; see People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1286-1287.)” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 812.)
In People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, we identified three types of evidence—evidence of planning activity, preexisting motive, and manner of killing—that assist in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings of premeditation and deliberation. (People v. Solomon, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 812.) We have made clear, however, that “’Anderson did not purport to establish an exhaustive list that would exclude all other types and combinations of evidence that could support a finding of premeditation and deliberation.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Using Anderson as a guide, we turn to the instant record.
1. Planning Activity
Defendant contends there was no evidence of a prior plan to kill or even meet Officer Fraembs, emphasizing it was Fraembs who initiated the early morning encounter. Defendant also points to Flores‘s testimony that he was nervous after shooting the officer and acted like he did not know what he had just done; this, he claims, did not suggest he killed as the result of “preexisting reflection” rather than “mere unconsidered or rash impulse.” (People v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1125.) We are not convinced.
In People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, the defendant shot a police officer only a few minutes after the officer
Here, as in People v. Brady, the record contains substantial evidence that the killing did not result from an unconsidered or rash impulse. Although defendant did not initiate the contact with Officer Fraembs, Flores‘s testimony amply supported the inference that defendant devised a plan to kill Fraembs once the officer indicated he would conduct a weapons search. As Fraembs began his patdown of Sparky, defendant acted as if he were complying with Fraembs‘s direction to sit down on the curb. By using Flores as a shield and carefully controlling her movements, defendant was able to approach Fraembs without attracting attention and to maneuver himself to a position of advantage over the unsuspecting officer. Once defendant got within six or seven feet of the officer, he was able to draw his gun while still screened by Flores. Defendant then pushed her aside and quickly stepped even closer to Fraembs. He took aim with both arms extended and shot the officer in the face. Defendant‘s plan proved successful, as Fraembs was taken utterly by surprise and had no opportunity to reach for his own weapons.
2. Preexisting Motive
Defendant claims the prosecution failed to show a motive consistent with planning and deliberation, because the evidence was insufficient to prove he killed Officer Fraembs in order to avoid arrest and parole revocation. We disagree.
Although defendant was never heard to say he killed to avoid arrest and parole revocation, ample circumstantial evidence supported this point. Defendant was on parole and subject to parole conditions that he not possess a weapon and not knowingly associate with gang members. Having signed a form acknowledging the terms of his parole, defendant knew that a violation could result in his being returned to a correctional institution for 575 days, plus a possible additional year for the actual possession of a weapon.
The evidence of defendant‘s parole conditions provided context to his murderous action. A month or two before the shooting, defendant told Flores he was on parole and “didn‘t want to go back” or “couldn‘t go back” to jail. More critically, on the night of the murder, defendant told Sparky to “hurry up” and meet him by the railroad tracks “because I‘m strapped,” meaning
As the prosecution told the jury during closing argument, it was reasonable to infer from this evidence that once Officer Fraembs started to pat down Sparky, defendant figured his turn would be next. Given the evidence of Fraembs‘s actions and defendant‘s knowledge that his gun possession violated his parole conditions, a rational jury could conclude that defendant‘s motive for killing the officer was to avoid arrest and a resulting return to custody. (See, e.g., People v. Vorise (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 312, 318-319, 322 [rational jury could conclude that defendant shot victim to avoid lawful arrest, where evidence showed defendant drew his weapon and fired after hearing victim‘s wife say she was going to call police].)
3. Manner of Killing
Defendant concedes that a single shot to the head might support the inference of a deliberate intent to kill. We agree. (E.g., People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1050 [“a close-range gunshot to the face is arguably sufficiently ‘particular and exacting’ to permit an inference that defendant was acting according to a preconceived design“].) Defendant argues, however, that “there are absolutely no facts to support planning activity” on his part. We could not disagree more.
None of the evidence suggested that defendant fired his weapon in a rash or panicked reaction to Officer Fraembs‘s appearance on the scene; indeed, all the evidence pointed to the contrary. Although defendant was startled when Fraembs first pulled up, he refused to flee and instead opted to confront the officer. When Fraembs indicated he would conduct a weapons search, defendant reacted in a cool and focused manner: he contrived to act as if he were following Fraembs‘s instruction to take a seat on the curb, but in actuality he formed a plan to approach and shoot Fraembs while the officer was distracted with Sparky. Because the manner of killing reflected stealth and precision, a rational jury could conclude that a preconceived design was behind the killing. (See People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 422 [victims shot in the head or neck from within a few feet]; People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197, 232 [noting the calm, cool, and focused manner of the subject shootings].)
B. Sufficiency of Lying-in-wait Evidence
Following presentation of the prosecution‘s case-in-chief, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. (
After the jury rendered its guilt and death verdicts, defendant moved for a new trial and for modification of the verdict or reduction of the penalty. As relevant here, he reiterated his contentions concerning the lying-in-wait evidence. The trial court denied defendant‘s motions, but agreed the evidence of waiting and watching was insubstantial as a matter of law. Relying specifically on section 1385, the court struck the lying-in-wait special circumstance.5
On appeal, both defendant and the People have complaints on this matter. Defendant asserts the reading of jury instructions on lying-in-wait first degree murder and the lying-in-wait special circumstance was error and violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and reliable guilt and penalty determinations. He further argues that the first degree murder conviction cannot be sustained on a lying-in-wait theory, and that the lying-in-wait special circumstance should remain stricken. Conversely, the People seek reinstatement of the lying-in-wait special circumstance, contending it was supported by sufficient evidence and the trial court lacked the authority to strike it. We address defendant‘s arguments first.
1. Requirements of Lying in Wait
The principles governing our analysis are settled. “The requirements of lying in wait for first degree murder under
We have explained the elements of the lying-in-wait special circumstance as follows. “‘The element of concealment is satisfied by a showing “that a defendant‘s true intent and purpose were concealed by his actions or conduct. It is not required that he be literally concealed from view before he attacks the victim.““’ [Citation.]” (People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 22.) As for the watching and waiting element, the purpose of this requirement “is to distinguish those cases in which a defendant acts insidiously from those in which he acts out of rash impulse. [Citation.] This period need not continue for any particular length ‘of time provided that its duration is such as to show a state of mind equivalent to premeditation or deliberation.‘” [Citation.]” (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 202, fn. omitted.)6 “The factors of concealing murderous intent, and striking from a position of advantage and surprise, ‘are the hallmark of a murder by lying in wait.’ [Citation.]” (Stevens, at p. 202.)
Defendant first claims the evidence was insufficient to prove a “substantial” period of watching and waiting for a favorable or opportune time to act, because the entire encounter was “fleeting” and it was “only a matter of seconds” until the shooting occurred.
As defendant acknowledges, we have never fixed a minimum time period for this requirement. Indeed, “‘[t]he precise period of time is . . . not critical,” so long as the period of watchful waiting is “‘substantial.“” (People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 23 [“a few minutes can suffice“]; see People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 826 [wait was “a matter of minutes“].)
Defendant next contends there was insufficient evidence establishing the other lying-in-wait requirements of concealment of purpose and a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage. We disagree. Although Officer Fraembs was certainly aware of defendant‘s physical presence, the evidence reflected that defendant managed to conceal his murderous purpose so well that he took the officer completely by surprise when he fired the single deadly shot at close range. From this evidence, a rational jury could infer that defendant did not kill out of rash impulse, but rather in a purposeful manner that required stealth and maneuvering to gain a position of advantage over the unsuspecting officer. (See People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228, 1245 [defendant “shot at the officers from a position of advantage before the officers had time to even draw their weapons“]; People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 22-23; see also People v. Stevens, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 203 [substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation dispels inference that killing resulted from a rash impulse].)8
Finally, defendant asserts his actions were not of the same character as those found to constitute lying in wait in other cases, e.g., he did not wait for a victim to arrive at a chosen location, or follow or lure a victim to a particular spot, or murder a victim in his sleep. No matter. Because each case necessarily depends on its own facts, and because defendant‘s conduct clearly satisfied each of the lying-in-wait requirements, the attempt to contrast this case with others falls short. (See People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 516 [comparing facts of different cases did not demonstrate the insufficiency of premeditation evidence in the case at hand].)
Having determined that substantial evidence supported the lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding, we conclude the evidence necessarily supported the conviction of lying-in-wait first degree murder. (People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 24.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err or violate defendant‘s constitutional rights when it allowed the prosecution to present its lying-in-wait theory and instructed the jury accordingly. Nor did the jury act unreasonably in returning a first degree murder conviction and a true finding on the lying-in-wait special-circumstance allegation. No reversal is warranted.
2. Authority to Strike the Special Circumstance
We now address the trial court‘s section 1385 ruling. The People contend that, once the jury found the lying-in-wait special circumstance to be true, the trial court could not strike or dismiss it pursuant to section 1385. We agree.
Section 1385 generally authorizes a judge to order an action dismissed in furtherance of justice. (
In light of section 1385.1, the court had no authority to strike the lying-in-wait special circumstance. (People v. Lewis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 214, 228; People v. Johnwell (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1283.)
In its brief, the People requested that we reinstate the lying-in-wait special circumstance pursuant to section 1260.9 In his reply brief, defendant objected to review of the section 1385 ruling on the ground that the People could not
and did not separately appeal it. In light of the parties’ contentions, we invited supplemental briefing on whether review of the trial court‘s ruling is appropriate under
Defendant advances three reasons why
While there is some merit to the contention that
Consistent with People v. Braeseke, supra, 25 Cal.3d 691, we hold that
Defendant contends that, even if review is appropriate at this time,
The language of
Defendant next contends that application of
Finally, defendant argues that if
Having concluded that the trial court had no authority to strike a special circumstance, we reinstate the lying-in-wait special circumstance pursuant to our statutory power under
C. Absence of Instruction Requiring Unanimous Agreement on Theory of Murder
The trial court did not instruct the jury that it had to unanimously agree on which, if any, statutory form of murder he committed (premeditated and deliberate or lying in wait). Relying on Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624 and Richardson v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 813, defendant contends the failure to do so was error and violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, to have the state establish proof of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a reliable guilt determination.
We have repeatedly rejected this identical contention (e.g., People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at pp. 1256–1257; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1221;
D. Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting the Special Circumstance Allegations of Murder of a Police Officer and Murder to Avoid a Lawful Arrest
At the close of the prosecution‘s case-in-chief, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the special circumstance allegations of murder of a police officer (
In ruling on a
(People v. Lynch (2010) 50 Cal.4th 693, 759.)
1. Police Officer Murder: Lawful Exercise of Duties
As relevant here,
Here, the prosecution presented testimonial and physical evidence that established the following. Officer Fraembs was in full uniform and driving in his marked patrol car at 1:30 a.m., when he saw two males and one female walking on a lonely industrial street. Defendant was dressed in black pants with a black bomber-style jacket, and Sparky wore a baggy T-shirt and baggy pants with a knife sheath attached to his belt.14 Although Fraembs was not alive to explain why he chose to make contact with the three pedestrians, certain inferences were reasonably drawn from the evidence. As the prosecution reasoned in its closing argument to the jury, “It is 1:30 in the morning and [Fraembs] elected to find out what is going on with these three people. . . . Are these three motorists that have been stranded and are looking for help? Is this female who is in the presence of the two males, is she involuntarily in their company? Are these three people who are lost? Are these three people suspects who are looking for a vehicle to burglarize or perhaps a business to burglarize because, remember, this is an industrial street. [¶] Officer Fraembs doesn‘t know.”
Consistent with the theory that Officer Fraembs may have thought the three needed help, Johanna Flores testified that Fraembs was “real nice” when he asked, “How are you guys doing tonight?” Flores seemed untroubled by the officer‘s approach, thinking the stop might have been “for curfew check, nothing major.” What happened next was significant. Although Fraembs asked his question in a friendly and nonaccusatory manner, the male who was a “lot taller” than Fraembs responded with “an attitude,” saying something like, “What the hell are you stopping us for” or “What are you stopping us for.” That male was defendant, who in Flores‘s words was acting “rude” and
The question is whether, on this record, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Officer Fraembs was acting lawfully when he was killed. For the reasons below, we conclude the answer is yes.
As defendant concedes, Officer Fraembs initiated a lawful consensual encounter when he approached defendant and his companions to ask how they were doing. (See Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497 [“law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place” or “by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen“]; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 328 [consensual encounter found where officer approached the defendant at a crime scene, “inquired whether he could assist him, and posed basic and preliminary questions” in a nonaccusatory and routine manner to establish whether the defendant might possess information concerning the crime].) Defendant, however, contends the consensual encounter ripened into an illegal detention when Fraembs directed Flores and him to take a seat on the curb and ordered Sparky to the patrol car for a patsearch.
Unlike a consensual encounter, a detention is a seizure within the meaning of the
We conclude the prosecution‘s evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Officer Fraembs was acting lawfully when he detained defendant and his companions to conduct a patsearch for weapons. As the record reflects, what began as a consensual encounter turned into a potentially threatening situation for Fraembs when defendant reacted to his friendly approach in a hostile manner. It was the middle of the night, and Fraembs was a lone officer outnumbered by three people, including one confrontational, much taller male and a second male wearing a knife in a sheath. Both males were wearing clothing loose enough to conceal other weapons, and there was no one in the immediate vicinity who might offer assistance. Such evidence amply supports the conclusion that, at that point, sufficient grounds supported Fraembs‘s decision to temporarily detain the three individuals to check for other weapons. (See People v. Rosales, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 330.)
Defendant disagrees and contends the photographic evidence showed that Sparky‘s knife sheath might not have been visible under his loose-fitting T-shirt. That, however, was a question for the trier of fact. (See ante, fn. 15.) But even assuming Fraembs did not know if any of the three were armed, it remains the case that he did not draw his gun, use his baton or handcuffs, or arrest anyone. Instead, Fraembs apparently decided a limited detention to conduct a patsearch was a sufficient precautionary measure for his safety, and he started with the male who was closest to him. This was perfectly appropriate. The totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of danger on the officer‘s part, and the detention and patsearch were reasonably designed to discover weapons. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 29; In re H.M., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 143.)
Because the evidence supports the conclusion that Officer Fraembs acted in accordance with the
As relevant here,
Defendant‘s motion to strike the special circumstance allegation of murder to avoid lawful arrest was correctly denied, and his related instructional objections were properly overruled.
E. Evidence of Threats
Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error by improperly admitting evidence of threats made to three witnesses and evidence of Johanna Flores‘s relocation, as well as by excluding testimony that Flores had threatened defendant several weeks before the shooting. He claims the erroneous evidentiary rulings undermined the integrity of his trial and violated his state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial, confrontation of witnesses, due process, effective assistance of counsel, and a reliable and nonarbitrary sentencing process.
1. “Third Party” Threat Against Flores
Flores testified at the preliminary hearing that she called defendant the morning after the shooting. Defendant‘s brother Angel answered and told her, “I thought you were dead.” When Flores asked why, Angel replied, “That‘s what we do to jaina[s] who see things, who see things they should not see.”16 At trial, the prosecutor contended Flores should be permitted to testify about this conversation because Angel‘s threat was relevant to her state of mind and credibility. Although defense counsel acknowledged that Flores had been “scared from Day One,” he argued that Angel‘s statements did not constitute a direct threat to Flores, that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay, and that it should be excluded under
After taking a recess to consider the matter, the trial court ruled it would allow the prosecution to elicit testimony from Flores that she felt threatened
Olguin, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, is instructive. There, an eyewitness to a gang-related shooting testified he left the crime scene and did not voluntarily provide information to the police because “‘I didn‘t want anything to happen to my house or to my family.‘” (Id. at p. 1368.) Over the defendants’ objection, the witness testified that someone telephoned him a few days after the shooting, that the caller said they knew where the witness lived and he had better watch his back, and that the caller also mentioned the name of the defendants’ gang. The witness further testified that someone subsequently “spray-painted the word ‘Rata’ (Spanish for ‘rat‘) on his driveway.” (Ibid.) In holding the challenged evidence was properly admitted, Olguin explained: “Just as the fact a witness expects to receive something in exchange for testimony may be considered in evaluating his or her credibility,
Likewise, in People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216, an eyewitness to a crime hesitated before responding affirmatively when asked by the prosecutor whether the person she previously identified in a lineup (i.e., the defendant) was in the courtroom. (Id. at p. 232.) At an in camera hearing, the trial court ruled the prosecution might ask whether the witness was reluctant to testify out of fear, because “the fact she felt fear, whether or not caused by specific acts of any persons connected with the trial, was relevant to her credibility and . . . the probative value outweighed any potential prejudice to defendant.” (Ibid.) Upon resuming the stand, the witness testified she was afraid to testify. Defense counsel then clarified during cross-examination that the witness‘s fear was due only to the importance of the event. (Ibid.) On appeal, we concluded the evidence was properly admitted: “The determination that an explanation of [the witness‘s] hesitation would be relevant to the jury‘s assessment of her credibility was well within the discretion of the trial court.” (Ibid.) Moreover, the evidence had no prejudicial impact given counsel‘s clarification that the witness‘s fear did not reflect on the defendant. (Ibid.)
These authorities make clear that a trial court has discretion, within the limits of
Defendant maintains that none of Flores‘s testimony on the point was admissible because she never recanted her testimony nor were there substantial inconsistencies in it.18 To support this position, he relies on People v. Brooks (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 180, which purported to hold that a witness‘s testimony concerning a threat she received was irrelevant because the witness gave no inconsistent testimony before the threat testimony was elicited. According to Brooks, the absence of any prior inconsistent testimony on the part of that witness meant “there was no issue of credibility . . . ,” thus rendering “the ‘threat’ evidence . . . immaterial to any issue and irrelevant to the case.” (Id. at p. 187.)
We are not persuaded by Brooks for several reasons. First, Brooks cited no authority for the proposition that inconsistent testimony is a prerequisite to the admission of evidence of a third party‘s threat or a witness‘s fear, and such a proposition finds no support in the terms of
Finally, defendant claims that the trial court “completely ignored the question of whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value” and that it failed to rule on his
2. Third Party Threats Against Arambula and Silva
Defendant next contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence that (1) Elva Arambula became frightened by a threat she received following her preliminary hearing testimony, and (2) Joseph Silva became frightened after a Happy Town gang member named Casper told him to keep his mouth shut and said his entire family would be killed if he testified that defendant had admitted shooting a cop.
Arambula and Silva both gave testimony that was inconsistent with their earlier statements in certain respects.21 On appeal, defendant and the People dispute whether the inconsistencies were substantial or minor. Regardless of this disagreement, the testimony was properly admitted. As discussed, evidence that a witness is afraid to testify or fears retaliation for testifying is relevant to that witness‘s credibility (People v. Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 869;
Defendant next contends that
3. Alleged Atmosphere of Fear
Defendant complains the erroneous admission of the alleged threats and testimony regarding witnesses’ fear created an atmosphere of fear among the jurors such that he was deprived of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. To prove his point, defendant identifies one instance in which some of the jurors approached the bailiff about a spectator in court who, even though he had not said or done anything, made them feel “uncomfortable.” Defendant also notes that another time, a juror told the court he was worried that a newspaper photographer had taken his picture.
Defendant forfeited review of this constitutional claim by failing to raise it at trial. (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1201; see People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 208–209.) Even assuming it was properly preserved, we would find it lacking in merit. As discussed above, the evidence of third party threats and the witnesses’ fear was relevant on the issue of witness credibility. The questioning and closing argument concerning such evidence was brief and noninflammatory, and limiting instructions were given as requested.
Although some jurors initially expressed concern about the courtroom spectator and newspaper photographer, the record reflects that the trial court immediately addressed each concern to the apparent satisfaction of the
In sum, defendant fails to establish that any error occurred, much less one of constitutional dimension.
4. Flores‘s Threat Against Defendant
After the prosecution concluded its direct examination of Jason Meyers, the defense asked the trial court to allow Meyers to testify he heard Flores tell defendant, about a month and a half before the shooting, that she could have defendant “taken out” by “Cherryville.” The prosecution vigorously objected, arguing in part that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and that Flores, who had concluded her testimony but was subject to recall, should have been given the opportunity to deny or explain the alleged threat. The court agreed that Flores‘s relationship and general demeanor with defendant in the two weeks leading up to the shooting would be relevant to show any bias or motive she might have to testify falsely against defendant, but concluded that the alleged threat was too remote to be relevant and excluded the testimony. Specifically, the court rejected defense counsel‘s argument that Flores‘s threat to have defendant taken out by members of a rival gang would be relevant to show she might be willing to wrongly accuse defendant out of intense hatred and bias. On appeal, defendant contends the court‘s exclusion of the alleged threat was contrary to state law and also deprived him of his federal constitutional rights to present his defense and to due process and a fair trial. We disagree.
Under
It bears mentioning that, by the time the issue of Flores‘s alleged threat arose, the jury had already heard substantial testimony concerning the stormy relationship between Flores and defendant, and specifically about Flores‘s anger and jealousy over defendant‘s interactions with other women. Flores herself testified that she was angry at defendant for “screwing” and for maintaining a sexual relationship with Valore, and that she told defendant “[i]t‘s either Brandy or me.” Flores also acknowledged that, on the night of Officer Fraembs‘s shooting, she argued with defendant when he received a page from Valore while at Tank‘s house and got so mad she hit him. As the two walked to meet Sparky, Flores was again angered when defendant asked a girl for a cigarette. Meyers confirmed during his direct examination that Flores reacted to the cigarette request by “getting all crazy with [defendant], hitting him and calling him names and cursing at him.”
On this record, we cannot say the trial court abused its broad discretion in excluding evidence of Flores‘s alleged threat. First, the jury had already heard substantial evidence of Flores‘s potential bias or motive to lie, so the court could reasonably view Meyers‘s additional impeachment testimony as being of marginal value. (See People v. Harris, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1292.) Second, the court could reasonably decide that the alleged threat would cause confusion or undue prejudice, given the significant difference between a jealous woman who threatens to have a rival gang “take out” her cheating boyfriend, and one who, several weeks following a capital murder, manipulates the criminal justice system with false accusations against the boyfriend to ensure his conviction of murder.25 Third, the possibility that the prosecution would seek to re-call Flores to deny or explain the alleged threat, and the time such questioning would have consumed, also was a valid consideration.
F. Evidence Regarding Defendant‘s Parole
Defendant challenges the trial court‘s rulings pertaining to his parole status and related matters.
1. Admission of Parole-related Evidence
The trial court permitted the introduction of evidence that defendant was on parole from the CYA at the time of the shooting, that he was subject to a parole condition that he not possess a weapon, that he signed a form acknowledging the terms of his parole, and that he was on notice that a parole violation could result in his being returned to custody for 575 days, plus a possible additional year for the actual possession of a weapon. The court also allowed Flores to testify that, a month or two before the shooting, defendant had told her he was on parole and “didn‘t want to go back” or “couldn‘t go back” to jail. The prosecution relied on this evidence, as well as on statements defendant made the night of the shooting about his carrying a gun, to bolster its theory that defendant committed the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Officer Fraembs in order to avoid arrest and a return to custody on a serious parole violation.
Defendant contends the evidence of his parole status and conditions and Flores‘s testimony on the point should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative. Although defendant‘s
For purposes of
Here, the evidence of defendant‘s parole status and his awareness of the consequences he faced if arrested for carrying a gun was highly probative of his mental state and motive at the time of the shooting. (See ante, pt. II.A.2.) Defendant‘s statement to Flores that he “didn‘t want to go back” or “couldn‘t go back” to jail was probative for the same reason, and the circumstance that it might have been uttered a month or two before the shooting did not render the evidence irrelevant, or too remote or unreliable. (People v. Taylor (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1173 [that witness‘s conversation with defendant occurred three years before defendant‘s commission of robbery and murder affected the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility]; People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 511 [“remoteness of evidence goes to its weight and not to its reliability“].)
At the same time, none of this evidence was inflammatory or substantially likely to elicit an impermissible emotional response from the jury. Evidence that defendant was on parole from a juvenile detention center and did not want to go back was not so emotionally charged as to inhibit its logical evaluation by the jury. Nor would the evidence, by virtue of its nature, have prompted the jury to punish defendant. No abuse of discretion appears.
2. Exclusion of Prior Parole Violation
When the court was considering whether to admit the parole-related evidence, defense counsel referred to evidence that a month before Officer Fraembs‘s shooting, defendant was tested for drugs by his parole officer and was found “positive for methamphetamine.” Counsel also indicated that defendant had previously admitted drug use to his parole officer, who then advised defendant to “clean up” before the drug test. Asserting this was “strong corroborative circumstantial evidence” that defendant “might have been under the influence of methamphetamine at the time he shot [Fraembs],” counsel argued the evidence should “come in for that purpose.” The court disagreed, concluding the evidence was speculative on the issue because the positive drug test would not have established that defendant was under the influence a month later when he shot Fraembs, and no witness who observed defendant on the evening in question described him as acting under the influence.
Defendant does not argue the court‘s ruling was erroneous on the basis described above. Instead, he characterizes his admissions of drug use and his
First, a fair reading of the record discloses that defendant neglected to advance this theory of admissibility at trial. Procedurally, then, the issue has not been preserved for review. (
Second, even assuming the evidence should have been admitted, its absence was harmless. Evidence that defendant‘s parole was not revoked on the basis of his admissions of drug use and the single positive drug test would have done little to prove defendant‘s lack of concern that his parole could and would have been revoked for the much more serious violations of carrying a loaded, concealed weapon in the company of Sparky, a gang member (knowingly associating with gang members was a separate parole violation). Indeed, defendant specifically fretted over his gun carrying more than once the evening of the shooting. Not only did defendant say he did not want to get “busted” for being “strapped” when meeting Sparky at the railroad tracks, but defendant‘s immediate reaction when Officer Fraembs pulled up behind them was to say, “Oh, shit, the [cops]” and “Oh, shit. I got the gun.” On this record, it is not reasonably probable that admission of the proffered evidence would have garnered a more favorable result for defendant. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
3. Failure to Give Limiting Instruction
Defendant next contends the trial court erred by failing to give CALJIC No. 2.50, which instructs the jury as to the limited use of other-crimes evidence. Although defense counsel indicated at a pretrial hearing that he would request this instruction if the jury were to hear about the crimes defendant committed as a juvenile, it appears counsel did not do so in light of certain changed circumstances at trial.26
This case does not present the type of “extraordinary” situation contemplated in People v. Collie, supra, 30 Cal.3d 43. As explained, the evidence of defendant‘s parole status and parole conditions was highly relevant to the central issue of defendant‘s mental state and intent with regard to both the first degree murder count and the charged special circumstances. At the same time, it was not inflammatory and “there was little, if any, danger that the jury would consider such evidence for any improper purposes . . . including general criminal disposition.” (People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1226.)27 Consequently, no sua sponte instruction was required.
Because there is no merit to any of the foregoing evidentiary and instructional claims of state law error, it follows that the claimed errors did not violate his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
G. CALJIC No. 2.51
With defendant‘s agreement, the trial court instructed the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.51, as follows: “Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may tend to establish the defendant is guilty. Absence of motive may tend to show the defendant is not guilty.”
Notwithstanding his acquiescence at trial, defendant complains on appeal that CALJIC No. 2.51 fails to adequately instruct that motive alone is
H. CALJIC Nos. 2.02, 2.21.2, 2.22, 2.27, 8.20
Defendant contends the trial court gave several instructions that undermined the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of his constitutional rights to due process, trial by jury, and a reliable guilt verdict: CALJIC Nos. 2.02, 2.21.2, 2.22, 2.27, and 8.20.
As defendant acknowledges, we have previously rejected such contentions as to all the instructions cited. (E.g., People v. Tate, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 697–698; People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 506; People v. Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 53; People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 220–221.) We decline to reconsider our position.
I. Validity of the Lying-in-wait Special Circumstance
Defendant argues the lying-in-wait special circumstance, as interpreted by this court, violates the
Defendant makes a number of challenges to the constitutionality of our state death penalty sentencing scheme and the jury instructions thereunder. We have previously rejected all such challenges, as follows.
Contrary to defendant‘s assertions,
“Neither the federal nor the state Constitution requires that the penalty phase jury make unanimous findings concerning the particular aggravating circumstances, find all aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, or find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 689.) Moreover, jury unanimity is not required with regard to unadjudicated criminal activity. (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 799.) There is no constitutional requirement that the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate punishment. (People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 199–200; People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 428.) The Supreme Court‘s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, and Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 have not altered these conclusions. (Jennings, at p. 689; Carrington, at p. 200; Dykes, at pp. 799–800.)
“‘The death penalty scheme is not unconstitutional because it fails to allocate the burden of proof—or establish a standard of proof—for finding the existence of an aggravating factor. . . . [Citations.]‘” (People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 689.) Nor was the trial court required to instruct the jury that there is no burden of proof at the penalty phase. (Ibid.) The federal Constitution does not require that the state bear some burden of persuasion at the penalty phase, and the jury instructions were not deficient in failing to so provide. (People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1272; People v. Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 89.) Defendant was not entitled to an instruction regarding a “‘presumption of life.‘” (Russell, at p. 1272; see People v. Ervine, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 811.)
Our standard penalty phase instructions do not call for jury unanimity on mitigating factors; nor do they mislead a jury into believing such unanimity is required. (People v. Hawthorne (2009) 46 Cal.4th 67, 104.) Moreover, “[t]he trial court need not instruct that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and the requirement of jury unanimity do not apply to mitigating factors.” (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 897.)
Written findings by the jury during the penalty phase are not constitutionally required, and their absence does not deprive defendant of meaningful appellate review. (People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1274; People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 166.)
The trial court was not required, at defendant‘s request, to delete the inapplicable factors in aggravation and mitigation. (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1185; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 439–440 [when a jury has been given standard statutory instructions, we assume it has followed such instructions and has concluded that mitigating factors were inapplicable if not supported by the evidence].) Nor was the trial court “constitutionally required to instruct the jury as to which of the listed sentencing factors are aggravating, which are mitigating, and which could be either mitigating or aggravating, depending upon the jury‘s appraisal of the evidence. [Citations.]” (People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 690.) “Additionally, ‘the statutory instruction to the jury to consider “whether or not” certain mitigating factors were present did not unconstitutionally suggest that the absence of such factors amounted to aggravation. [Citation.]’ ” (Ibid.) Finally, the inclusion of inapplicable factors did not deprive defendant of his
“[A]djectives such as ‘extreme’ in
California‘s death penalty sentencing scheme is not constitutionally defective in omitting to provide for intercase proportionality review. (People v. Russell, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1274; People v. Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 691.) Moreover, “[b]ecause capital defendants are not similarly situated to noncapital defendants, California‘s death penalty law does not deny capital defendants equal protection by providing certain procedural protections to noncapital defendants but not to capital defendants. [Citation.]” (Jennings, at p. 690.)
K. Cumulative Error
Defendant contends the cumulative prejudicial effect of the errors in both the guilt phase and the penalty phase requires reversal of his conviction and sentence of death. We have rejected nearly all of defendant‘s claims of error, and when we have found or assumed error, we have determined defendant was not prejudiced. Whether such claims are considered individually or together, we find no prejudicial error at either phase of the proceedings.
III. DISPOSITION
We conclude that the trial court had no authority to strike the lying-in-wait special circumstance (
Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., and Liu, J., concurred.
Appellant‘s petition for a rehearing was denied January 4, 2012.