People v. MoralesPeople v. Morales
A jury convicted defendant Alfonso Ignacio Morales of four counts of first degree murder (
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2002, the bodies of Miguel Ruiz (who was known as Mike), Maritza Trejo, Ana Martinez, and Jasmine Ruiz were discovered in the home they shared.2 Mike, Maritza, and Ana had been fatally stabbed. Jasmine, who was then eight years old, had been sexually assaulted and died from asphyxiation. Morales was linked to the murders through physical evidence, including shoe prints and a palm print found at the home, fingerprints found on goods stolen from the home,
Morales was charged with four counts of first degree murder (counts 1–4;
The jury convicted on all counts and found true the special circumstances of multiple murders and murder in the
A. Guilt Phase Evidence
In 2002, Mike lived with his common law wife Maritza, his grandmother Ana, his stepdaughter Maritza Raquel Trejo (who was known as Raquel), and his and Maritza‘s eight-year-old daughter Jasmine in a three-bedroom home in Whittier. Jasmine and Raquel shared a bedroom. Morales, who was in his mid-20‘s at the time, lived around the corner from the family. Morales and Mike were friends; Morales would visit the family‘s home almost every day to hang out with Mike.
On his visits, Morales sometimes briefly interacted with Raquel and Jasmine, usually sharing just quick hellos. But on one occasion Morales made Raquel uncomfortable by standing in the backyard, staring at her through her bedroom window, and asking her to come outside. After the encounter, Morales apologized to Mike and Maritza and bought the whole family dinner. Morales also once asked Raquel on a date, and she said
Sometimes when Morales visited Mike at home, he would drive his car (a green Mustang), though he lived just down the street. Hector Alvarez, a neighbor of the family, would see Morales‘s Mustang at the house approximately four days a week. About two months before the murders, Alvarez stopped seeing Morales‘s car in front of the family‘s house, and about a month before the murders, he stopped seeing Morales at the house. Raquel also realized about a week before the murders that Morales had stopped coming to the house.
The murders occurred sometime after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11, 2002, and before 8:30 a.m. on Friday, July 12, 2002. Mike and Maritza were last seen alive between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m. on Thursday night, when one of Mike‘s friends visited them at their home for 15 to 30 minutes. Raquel spent the night at her uncle‘s house that night. The family‘s back-door neighbor, Doris Morris, saw a step stool against the wall of her property that abutted the family‘s property on either Thursday or Friday morning: At trial in 2005, Morris testified she saw the stool on Thursday morning at around 8:00 a.m. and moved it at about noon, but in an interview with law enforcement officers on Saturday, July 13, 2002, Morris said she had seen the stool on Friday morning at around 6:00 a.m. and moved it at about 11:00 a.m. Morris‘s backyard was not enclosed, so someone could walk directly from Morris‘s backyard to Morales‘s house down the street.
At 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Leopoldo Salgado, a local bar manager, saw Morales at the bar. Morales, who visited the bar frequently but did not drink, asked to talk to Salgado. Salgado asked Morales to wait until closing, after which Morales left the bar. At around 2:00 a.m., Salgado saw Morales sitting in his car in the bar parking lot, but Salgado did not have time to talk at length with Morales.
On Saturday, July 13, 2002, at around 6:00 a.m., Doris Morris saw a large trash barrel and step stool against her wall abutting the family‘s property. The step stool was different than the one she had seen previously. When she went outside at 6:15 a.m., both the stool and the barrel were gone.
The police arrived and began documenting and collecting evidence. They found blood all over the house. In the entryway, the walls and door had blood spatter and smears. In the living room, they found blood spatter and pooled blood on the floor, as well as potential handprints on the sofa, which was smeared with blood. There also was a trail of blood with drag marks leading out of the living room toward the bedrooms. It appeared
The police also documented several pieces of physical evidencе. Tomato paste, barbeque sauce, and honey had been poured all over the walls and on the bed linens. The police discovered a six-to-eight-inch-long purple sex toy in the bathtub, between Jasmine‘s legs. In the closet of Mike‘s office, the police found an empty package that might have contained the sex toy. They found pieces of orange cord on the bathroom floor, on the bed in the master bedroom, and underneath Ana‘s body. On the bodies of Mike and Maritza, they found a bottle and cleaner-like substance. The police also took shoe impressions from multiple locations in the home, including from a wooden chair found in the girls’ bedroom.
In addition to documenting and collecting evidence at the scene, officers began investigating potential leads. This effort led them to Morales‘s home. One officer noticed shoe prints near Morales‘s front door that appeared similar to the impression discovered on the wooden chair in the girls’ bedroom. During their conversation with Morales, the officers asked to see the bottom of Morales‘s boots. Believing the shoes might match the impression from the chair, the officers asked Morales to come to
In this first interview, Morales denied knowing anything about the murders. During the course of the interview, he mentioned that he was not allowed in the girls’ bedroom. He agreed to give the officers his boots and consented to a search of his house. After the interview, while officers transported him to a different police station, Morales admitted that he was in the victims’ house when they were murdered.
Morales was then interviewed a second time. He told the officers he went to the family‘s house on Wednesday night (later, he said he was not sure of the day) around 8:00 р.m. and saw through the office window two men with guns talking to Mike. The men called Morales inside, taped his hands, and put him in the living room. Then they began killing the family. The men started in the office with Mike, who then came into the living room with his throat bleeding. They then attacked Maritza, who had been in the kitchen making coffee, and she died in the living room. They then killed Ana, who had been in her bedroom. And they finished by assaulting and killing Jasmine in the back of the house. The men directed Morales to make a mess in the house and told him to take Mike‘s computer equipment. Morales put the stolen items into a large trash barrel and dragged it to his house.
In his third interview, Morales mostly repeated the same story, but this time he stated that the events took place on Thursday night at 8:00 p.m., and he said Ana was in the living room when the men killed her and that they dragged her, Mike, and Maritza to the back of the house. He also told officers that he went to Mike‘s home that night to repay him $50 of a $100
Significant physical evidence connected Morales to the crime. The police conducted a sexual assault examination of Jasmine, and sperm found in Jasmine‘s anus conclusively matched Morales‘s DNA profile; sperm found in her vagina was consistent with Morales‘s DNA. Morales‘s palm print was found on the handle of the mop located in the entryway. Morales‘s shoe matched the impression found on the wooden chair in the girls’ bedroom. Blood from the tip of Morales‘s shoelace matched Maritza‘s profile, and Mike was a possible contributor. In Morales‘s shed, they found the trash barrel with electronics from the family‘s home. Morales‘s fingerprints were on many of the items in the barrel. And in Morales‘s bedroom, officers found a model car and watches that belonged to Mike, jewelry, and a little girl‘s wristwatch.
Later that year, in October 2002, Morales‘s stepfather found two ammunition boxes underneath a woodpile in Morales‘s backyard. One of the boxes contained, among other things, bloody clothes, including boxers, and a six-inch Vaquero folding knife. The other box contained similar items, including a black jacket, a dagger in a sheath, a five-inch United knife in a sheath, and two bloody fingerless gloves. Morales‘s stepfather identified several of these items (but not the knives) as belonging to Morales. Blood on the United knife handle matched Maritza‘s DNA profile, with Morales as a possible contributor; blood on the Vaquero knife matched Mike‘s profile,
Medical examiners conducted autopsies of each of the four victims. Mike had multiple sharp-force injuries on his body, including on his neck and back. The cause of death was a slicing wound to the front of his neck, which severed his jugular veins. Such a wound is not immediately fatal and could have given Mike time to stagger a few feet before collapsing. The wound to his neck was consistent with an attack from behind. One of his wounds was consistent with a double-edged knife and another was consistent with a single-edged knife, indicating that the attacker had used two different knives. Mike had no defensive wounds. A postmortem injury to his right wrist was consistent with being dragged with a cord after death.
Maritza was stabbed 31 times and cut 14 times; some injuries were consistent with a single-edged knife while others were consistent with a double-edged knife. She had at least five fatal wounds — on her neck, chest, and back — and the injuries were consistent with someone who had struggled with and fled her attacker. Some of the wounds were clustered on various parts of her body, including her neck and back.
Ana suffered two fatal sharp-force wounds to her neck; the wounds were consistent with an attacker holding two different weapons. Ana also had a blunt-force injury to her scalp and other minor injuries, but no defensive wounds.
The prosecution called Sheriff‘s Deputy Paul Delhauer to testify as a crime scene reconstruction expert. Delhauer had examined between 800 and 900 cases in his career and had frequently analyzed blood spatter, knife wounds, and blood stains. Delhauer testified to the potential relative locations and sequence of the murders, as well as the manner of the killings, based on his analysis of the reports and documents in the case, personal observations made at the scene, blood stains and spatter in the home, the autoрsy reports, other physical evidence found in the home, and his own experiments. He also testified that the crime scene appeared to have been staged to mislead investigators about what had occurred.
The defense presented one guilt phase witness, investigator Richard Salazar. Salazar testified that an object Delhauer had identified as a bidet hose, which Delhauer suggested might have been used to cleanse Jasmine‘s vaginal and rectal areas, was actually a hose that attached to a hookah pipe, which was used for smoking tobacco and other substances.
During the penalty phase, the People called several family members of the victims to provide victim impact evidence: Raquel, Zeledon, Mike Rodriguez, Sr. (Mike‘s father and Ana‘s son), Luz Ruiz (Rodriguez‘s wife), and Olga Lizzette Ruiz (Mike‘s sister). These family members testified about their previous relationships with the victims, the personalities of the victims, and the impact of the murders on their lives. The People also introduced several pictures of the victims and a one-minute video of Jasmine.
The People introduced two prior criminal act allegations against Morales. A law enforcement officer testified that while Morales was in jail in December 2002, the officer discovered in Morales‘s cell a plastic spoon with one side sharpened and a thread wrapped around the handle. The officer believed this item was a shank, though Morales had claimed he used it to transport written messages to other prisoners (i.e., as a “fishing line“). Another officer testified that in February 2003, he found a contraband razor blade and what he believed to be a homemade handcuff key in Morales‘s cell.
Morales‘s witnesses testified about his upbringing, his learning disability, and his record in school and at work. Morales grew up with his mother, his sister Yvonne, and his brother Emi. When Morales was young, his father left the family. After that, many of his mother‘s subsequent partners were abusive toward Morales. One partner physically abused Morales. Another partner, who was an alcoholic, verbally abused Morales starting at the age of 10, mostly about Morales‘s apparent lack of intelligence. When Morales was in his teens, Emi died unexpectedly in a rockslide in Yosemite. Morales was
Morales also struggled in school. As early as the first grade, he was at the bottom of the class. Throughout most of his education, he attended special education classes. His fourth through sixth grade teacher testified that Morales seemed depressed and was not very social. By the eighth grade, Morales was reading at only a first grade level, with a very limited vocabulary. He was withdrawn and dejected and often picked on by other kids. These trends continued in high school.
Two experts testified that Morales had a severe learning disability. While Morales‘s IQ was average or just below average in certain subjects, he struggled in subjects that required him to express himself. This discrepancy was consistent with someone with a learning disability, as opposed to someone with an intellectual disability. One expert testified that Morales‘s truancy was likely tied to his learning disability. The second expert confirmed these findings. He concluded that Morales had suffered from long-standing brain damage and learning disabilities. While Morales had an average IQ, he struggled expressing his thoughts. Morales also tended to react impulsively, rather than after considered thought.
On rebuttal, the People introduced evidence that Morales had been dismissed from a vocational program during high school. As part of the program, Morales had tried various jobs and a remedial program. He was fired from his job as a summer camp counselor because he dunked a seven-year-old camper‘s
II. DISCUSSION
A. Guilt Phase Issues
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Premeditation and Deliberation
Morales challenges his first degree murder convictions on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show he committed the murders with premeditation and deliberation. We reject the challenge.
“When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) We determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) In so doing, a reviewing court ” ’ “presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” ’ (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 191, 306 P.3d 1049].)” (People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 626.)
In People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at page 26 (Anderson), we identified “three basic categories” of evidence this court has generally found sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation: (1) planning activity, or “facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing“; (2) motive, or “facts about the defendant‘s prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a ‘motive’ to kill the victim“; and (3) manner of killing, or “facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed
In the years since Anderson, ” ‘we have emphasized that its guidelines are descriptive and neither normative nor exhaustive, and that reviewing courts need not accord them any particular weight.’ ” (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 324.) Anderson provides “a framework to aid in appellate review,” but it does not “define the elements of first degree murder or alter the substantive law of murder in any way.” (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125.)
Here, focusing on the three Anderson categories, Morales argues that the prosecution failed to introduce evidence of planning activity, motive, or a manner of killing sufficient to find he committed the murders with premeditation and deliberation, as opposed to rash impulse. We disagree; sufficient evidence supported a finding of premeditation and deliberation.
As for planning activity, the People presented evidence that Morales surreptitiously entered the victims’ home and attacked Mike by surprise before killing the other victims. Specifically, a law enforcement officer testified that the family‘s back-door neighbor, Doris Morris, had told him on Saturday, July 13, 2002, that she had seen a step stool by her back wall on Friday morning at around 6:00 a.m. (Though Morris testified at trial that she saw the stool at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, the jury could have believed Morris‘s contemporaneous statement to be more reliable than her testimony in court several years later.) Further, Mike was wearing only his underwear when he was attacked; Raquel testified that Mike did not walk around the home in his underwear. The fatal slicing wound to Mike‘s neck was consistent with an attack from behind, and Mike did not
Morales suggests that the evidence of planning activity was undermined by the fact that no evidence definitively showed he was armed when he entered the victims’ home. Although knives used to commit the murders were later found in Morales‘s backyard, no evidence established that the knives belonged to Morales, as opposed to the victims. The same is true of the bloody fingerless gloves that were found along with the knives in Morales‘s backyard. But a jury might well consider the very fact that Morales used gloves and three different knives as supporting an inference that Morales did not spontaneously pick up these tools once inside the home, but instead arrived prepared to attack. In any event, еven assuming Morales found the knives in the residence rather than arming himself before entry, the evidence of the surprise attack on Mike makes it reasonable to infer that Morales sought out the knives to effectuate that surprise, and did not pick up the three knives out of spur-of-the-moment impulse. (See People v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1126; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 547.)
The People also supplied evidence of a possible motive. The evidence suggested that a rift had grown between Morales and the victims. Morales had previously made Raquel uncomfortable by standing at her window and staring at her. He also had asked her out, but she avoided him on the night of
The jury might also have inferred from the evidence that Morales was motivated to kill Mаritza, Ana, and Jasmine to “silence [them] as [] possible witness[es]” to the murder of Mike, and in Jasmine‘s case “to silence her as a possible witness” to her own assault. (People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 248.) And lastly, Morales stole several expensive items, including watches and computer equipment, from the home, suggesting an additional motive: to steal from the family and then kill them to avoid identification. (See People v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 1126–1127.)
The killing of the victims was also prolonged, a fact that “supports an inference of deliberation.” (People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 425.) Morales‘s attacks on both Maritza and Ana involved “multiple weapons” and “numerous stabs and slashes” suggesting the attacks were extended. (People v. Potts, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 1028.) So too with the attack on Jasmine; the evidence tended to show she was assaulted while alive and then killed. Moreover, the evidence showed the attacks ” ‘occurred in stages,’ ” as reflected by Morales‘s own description of the events and demonstrated by the evidence that, after Mike was attacked, Maritza then struggled with his attacker before she, too, was killed. (Ibid., quoting People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 244.) And the jury could have interpreted the evidence as showing that Morales had to “travel through the house” to kill the victims. (Potts, at p. 1028.) Significant amounts of blood in the office, entryway, and living room suggested attacks occurred in each of those locations. Moreover, Morales‘s story to the police as well as the location of Jasmine‘s body suggested Jasmine was killed in the back of the home, as opposed to in the front of the home where the evidence showed the other attacks occurred.
Finally, Morales‘s actions after the murder could have reasonably contributed to the jury‘s finding that he committed the murders with premeditation and deliberation. The jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that Morales stayed at the home after he murdered Mike to kill the other members of the family, and that, after killing the remaining family members, he stayed to steal items and to “stage” the
In sum, the evidence of planning, motive, manner of killing, and Morales‘s actions after the murder, taken together, was sufficient to support the jury‘s finding that the murders were premeditated and deliberate.
2. Admission of Crime Scene Reconstruction Expert Testimony
Morales argues that the trial court violated both state evidence law and his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by admitting testimony of the People‘s crime scene reconstruction expert. We reject the argument.
As noted, at trial, the People called Sheriff‘s Deputy Paul Delhauer as a crime scene reconstruction expert. At a pretrial hearing, defense counsel sought to exclude certain opinions included in Delhauer‘s expert report. In response, the prosecution signaled it did not intend to solicit Delhauer‘s opinions on the challenged issues: Delhauer would only testify about crime scene staging, as well as physical items at the scene and evidence of the manner and method of death. Defense counsel noted hе had not challenged the portions of the report regarding staging, subject to the prosecution setting a proper foundation for Delhauer‘s training and experience. The court agreed Delhauer would not be permitted to testify beyond his expertise but stated it would not exclude Delhauer‘s observations about the crime scene.
The People called Delhauer as their final witness at trial. Delhauer had been a criminal profiler and crime scene analyst (otherwise known as a crime reconstructionist) since 1999. He had a bachelor of arts degree and had taken a college-level physics for health sciences course, but most of his training and experience had come through work. He had worked in various departments of the sheriff‘s office. In 1995, he spent six months in the coroner‘s office, where he conducted more than 200 death investigations and saw between 300 and 400 stab wounds. He eventually landed in the homicide bureau, where he was trained in, among other topics, homicides, sexual assault investigations, blood spatter analysis, and crime scene reconstruction. Delhauer examined between 800 and 900 cases, including 70 murder investigations, while in the homicide bureau. Over the course of his career, he had been directly involved in or assisted
Delhauer had also received specific training relevant to crime scene reconstruction, including blood spatter analysis. In addition to training he received through his department, Delhauer took a 40-hour class in which he learned about the dynamics and composition of blood and conducted around 40 experiments aimed at reproducing bloodshed. In his trainings, he also learned about different blood stains and pattern stains. He had cоnducted nearly 200 of his own reconstruction experiments for his cases, which included experiments on bloodshed, blunt force trauma, and sharp force and stab wounds. Specifically as to knife wounds, he had conducted relevant examinations at the coroner‘s office, interviewed the surviving victims of knife attacks, and conducted between 40 and 50 of his own experiments with various media, including meat and modeling clay, to reproduce knife wounds. He also continually maintained his education on these issues. He had previously qualified as an expert in Los Angeles County Superior Court eight or nine times.
After describing his experience and training, Delhauer explained how he had prepared to testify as an expert in the case. Before testifying, he had been to the crime scene for an hour and a half on the morning of Saturday, July 13, 2002; read all of the crime reports, interviews, forensic reports, and autopsy reports in the case; examined all of the photographs taken by law enforcement officers and the coroners; and conducted his own experiments.
Delhauer then briefly shared his overarching conclusions about how he believed the murders had been committed. He
The rest of Delhauer‘s testimony was aimed at supporting these conclusions. Delhauer testified about the evidence in the house room by room, beginning with the house‘s entryway. He first described the blood spatter patterns in the entryway. Defense counsel objected on the grounds of speculation and lack of foundation, but the court overruled the objection. Delhauer testified that the spatter showed that someone had been moving toward the front door and had attempted to open it, at which point the person was attacked and then fell to the ground. Defense counsel again objected, and the parties had a side bar with the court. The court found that Delhauer qualified as an
Delhauer next testified about evidence in Mike‘s office. Based on blood spatter on clothes on the floor of the office, Delhauer testified Mike had not been wearing the clothes when he was killed. Over a defense objection, Delhauer testified that the blood spatter in the office showed that someone who was bleeding had moved from the office to the living room; he later testified that some of the spatter was consistent with Mike moving out of the room. He concluded that some of the blood spatter in the office was consistent with Mike‘s fatal neck injury, which he believed had been inflicted from behind. He also testified that one of Morales‘s knives was consistent with Mike‘s neck wound. Bloody clothes were found in a hamper in the office bathroom, along with a rubber hose. Delhauer believed the hose was for use with a bidet, which is used to clean the vagina and anus, and that it had been wiped clean of blood. He opined on cross-examination that the hose may have been used to clean Jasmine‘s vaginal and rectal areas. Maritza‘s earring was also discovered under the office desk. From this and some blood
Turning to the living room, Delhauer identified certain blood stains as drag marks, which he concluded were made when the assailant dragged the bodies of Maritza and Mike to the back of the house, as also evidenced by the ligature marks on Mike‘s arm. He also identified one large blood stain and one smaller stain in that room. The larger stain near the couch was consistent with Mike‘s injury, while the smaller stain may have been made when Ana was killed or when Mike or Maritza was dragged through the area. He testified that the elbow of a human-shaped statue in the living room was consistent with the pattern injury on Ana‘s head. Delhauer also described how the food items and other random objects strewn about the house suggested someone had staged the crime scene to create a false narrative about what had happened at the scene.
After discussing pictures of Ana‘s bedroom, where Mike‘s, Maritza‘s, and Ana‘s bodies were discovered, Delhauer discussed pictures of Jasmine in the bathtub and her injuries, and then turned to pictures of Jasmine‘s bedroom. He opined that an herbal salad dressing stain on Jasmine‘s bed was consistent in shape with the purple sex toy found in the bathtub between Jasmine‘s legs. Finally, Delhauer testified about some of the items found in the ammunition boxes in Morales‘s backyard. Delhauer concluded that two of the three knives found in the boxes had been used in the attack.
On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited the following facts: Delhauer had a liberal arts degree in communications, with no master‘s degree and no degrees in criminal forensics or science. He believed he had first received
Delhauer also disagreed with several of the People‘s medical examiner and criminalist witnesses on a few points. Contrary to the medical examiner‘s testimony, he believed the attacker had cut Mike‘s throat with his right hand, not his left. And he believed the wound margins of Mike‘s wound were serrated, while the medical examiner testified they were clean. His initial conclusions were also contrary to several of the criminalists’ testimony, but he said he would be willing to change his opinion on those issues. For example, though he believed there were blood stains in the girls’ bedroom and on the bed in the master bedroom, the criminalists testified otherwise.
Finally, defense counsel challenged the bases of some of Delhauer‘s conclusions. Defense counsel questioned Delhauer‘s conclusion that the salad dressing stain on Jasmine‘s bed was made by the sex toy, asking whether the stain was not also consistent with a bottle of dressing found at the scene and exposing that Delhauer had no evidence that the sex toy had ever been placed in dressing. Delhauer also admitted that the blood in the entryway had not been typed, so he could not say it was from only a single person. As to Delhauer‘s experiments, he had not used the knives in evidence, and he acknowledged that
After both sides rested, the parties and the court further discussed Delhauer‘s testimony. The court again confirmed that Delhauer‘s blood spatter testimony was probably “appropriate and accurate” and that Delhauer had “an awful lot of on-the-job training.” The court noted, however, that Delhauer had “tended to overextend himself” when giving some of his opinions and had “basically [given] an overview of the entire case.” But defense counsel had also “done a very effective job of discrediting” Delhauer, and the court told Morales he could argue as much in closing. The court also believed that Delhauer‘s testimony was “largely cumulative.” For these reasons, the court admitted Delhauer‘s testimony over Morales‘s renewed objection for lack of foundation and speculation on state and federal constitutional grounds.
b. Discussion
” ‘The trial court‘s determination of whether a witness qualifies as an expert is a matter of discretion and will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse.’ ” (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 536.) We find such abuse only where ” ’ ” ‘the evidence shows that a witness clearly lacks qualification as an expert.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1063.) ” ’ ” ‘Where a witness has disclosed sufficient knowledge of the subject to entitle his opinion to go to the jury, the question of the degree of his knowledge goes more to the weight of the evidence than to its admissibility.’ ” ’ ” (Nelson, at p. 536, quoting People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 321–322.) As with expert qualifications, we review trial court decisions about the admissibility of evidence for abuse of
Morales seeks to challenge the admissibility of Delhauer‘s testimony on two grounds. First, he argues that Delhauer‘s testimony regarding the sequence of the crimes was speculative and lacked foundation. Second, he argues for the first time in his reply brief that Delhauer was not qualified to interpret blood spatter and that Delhauer‘s testimony should have been excluded for that reason as well.
As to the second argument, although Morales raised other objections to Delhauer‘s testimony in the trial court, he did not object on the basis of Delhauer‘s qualifications. We have held that failure to specifically object to an expert‘s qualifications forfeits the objection. (See People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 45–46; People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 478.) Morales has now doubly forfeited the objection by waiting until his reply brief to raise the issue. (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 408.)
But even had Morales not forfeited the claim, the claim would fail under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Before becoming a crime scene analyst, Delhauer was trained on blood spatter and crime scene reconstruction in the homicide bureau and had examined between 800 and 900 cases. He also trained for six months in the coroner‘s office, where he examined hundreds of knife wounds. And he had taken a college-level
We turn, then, to Morales‘s primary argument, that Delhauer‘s testimony as to the sequence of the murders should have been excluded as speculative and lacking in foundation. (See
Delhauer testified that the murderer first attacked Mike in the office by surprise. To support this conclusion, Delhauer noted Mike was not wearing clothes when he was killеd and that he was attacked from behind. Delhauer concluded Maritza was attacked in the office just after Mike was attacked based on blood spatter on the office wall and the location of her earring under the office desk. He testified she then ran to the entryway, where the murderer continued to attack her, based on the consistency between the spatter in the entryway and the numerous wounds she had suffered. The evidence that Maritza exited the office and was attacked continuously in the entryway supports a conclusion that her attack did not occur before Mike was surprised. And given that the evidence showed she was first attacked in the room in which Mike was attacked, it is at least consistent with the evidence to say she was attacked just after Mike.
The evidence Delhauer offered to support the sequence of Ana‘s and Jasmine‘s killings is less substantial, but at least some evidence supported his conclusions. He opined Ana had died in the living room based on the consistency between her head wound and a statue found on the living room floor, as well as the small blood stain found in the room. The entryway where Maritza died was connected to the living room, so evidence that Ana died in that room could suggest she was killed just after Maritza was killed nearby. And he concluded Jasmine had died last by being drowned in the bathtub, based on the location of her body, the foam around her mouth, and the lack of evidence of strangulation. The evidence that Jasmine was first assaulted
In light of the evidence supporting Delhauer‘s sequence conclusions, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Delhauer to testify as to this sequence. It was not unreasonable to conclude that Delhauer‘s opinions had an adequate foundation in the trial evidence and were based on his training and experience in crime scene reconstruction. (Cf. People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592, 631–632 [expert testimony concerning the relative positions of the shooter and the victims had adequate foundation where expert testified that other possible positions would have been awkward]; People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 148 [expert testimony at penalty phase was not speculative because, “[b]ased on his extensive training and experience, as well as on an examination of the premises and a thorough review of the police and medical reports in this case, [the expert] presented testimony regarding bullet trajectories, stippling, and the relative positions of the multiple victims and the shooter that was ‘sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact.’ (
Morales argues that Delhauer‘s opinions were undermined by law enforcement‘s failure to type the blood at each location in the home. But contrary to Morales‘s argument, the blood at each location need not have been typed for Delhauer to draw conclusions about the source of the blood; Delhauer testified that he reached his conclusions by comparing the spatter patterns to each victim‘s wounds and by analyzing other physical evidence in the home, such as the location of Maritza‘s earring. Given his qualifications, he was permitted to interpret this evidence as he did. Delhauer‘s testimony certainly would have been strengthened by blood-typing evidence, but the absence of such evidence did not render his opinions impermissibly speculative and thus inadmissible.
As Morales notes, cross-examination exposed several other weaknesses in Delhauer‘s testimony, including that he expressly disagreed with some of the coroners; he never viewed the bodies of the victims firsthand; he conducted his testing without using the actual knives in evidence; he did not review any physical evidence; and he potentially misidentified the hookah hose. But these weaknesses go to the weight to be given the evidence, not its admissibility. What we have said in previous cases applies equally here: “Defense counsel was
In any event, even if the trial court erred in allowing Delhauer to opine on the sequence and locations of the murders, the error was harmless under any possible standard. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.)
Morales argues that Delhauer‘s sequence testimony likely influenced the jury‘s finding of premeditation and deliberation, because it imposed “reason, organization and order” on a “frenzied and chaotic” crime scene. This argument gives Delhauer‘s sequencing testimony too much credit. Delhauer‘s conclusions about the sequence of the murders formed only a small part of his testimony. Though Delhauer gave a brief summary of his sequencing conclusions at the beginning of his testimony, his testimony mainly focused on an analysis of where and how each of the victims was killed. Moreover, as the trial court itself noted, much of this testimony concerned matters already independently established by evidence in the record. Among other things, the trial evidence showed that Morales used a step stool to sneak into the victims’ home and that he attacked Mike in a state of undress, delivering the fatal wound to Mike‘s neck from behind, and in a manner that resulted in no
In sum, Delhauer‘s sequencing testimony did not add meaningfully to the picture already before the jury. Any error in admitting the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 296 [finding error admitting expert testimony harmless under both Chapman and Watson].)5
Morales argues that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process when it admitted certain crime scene and autopsy photographs оf the victims. We find no error.
In a pretrial hearing, the trial court and the parties discussed the admissibility of color photographs of the victims. The trial judge first noted that the “primary concern has to be probative value versus prejudicial effect.” He recognized that the photographs might be gruesome, but he signaled his intent to allow the People significant leeway to introduce photographs given the “incredible complexity of this case.” Over the course of the hearing, Morales challenged the admissibility of many photographs, including pictures of the four victims’ faces from the autopsy table, which the People intended to use for identification purposes, though defense counsel offered to stipulate to the identities; a series of photographs of Jasmine‘s body in the bathtub, with and without the large statue on top of her; photographs of Jasmine‘s vaginal and anal injuries; photographs of Mike‘s wounds, including severe injuries to his
“Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the challenged photographs of the murder victims depends upon two factors: (1) whether the photographs were relevant, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the probative value of each photograph outweighed its prejudicial effect.” (People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 453.) We review the trial court‘s decision to admit the photographs for abuse of discretion. (People v. Mendez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 680, 708.) ” ‘The court‘s exercise of that discretion will nоt be disturbed on appeal unless the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect.’ ” (People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 18.)
Morales does not argue that the admitted photographs were irrelevant, nor could he do so successfully. “[T]he photographs were highly relevant to show the manner in which the victims were killed and the severity of their injuries,” as well as to “clarif[y] the coroner‘s testimony.” (People v. Ramirez, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 453; accord, People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1199.) For example, the autopsy photographs provided detailed views of the victims’ injuries, including photographs of the petechiae on Jasmine‘s hands and feet and the stab and slice wounds to various parts of Mike‘s, Maritza‘s, and Ana‘s bodies. The photographs also served to “illustrate and corroborate the testimony given by [witnesses] regarding the
Morales argues instead that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting photographs because they were overly gruesome. We disagree: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the probative value of each of the admitted photographs outweighed its prejudicial effect, while excluding other photographs for failure to pass this threshold. (See
Many of the photographs are undoubtedly graphic and disturbing, especially the photographs of the injuries Jasmine suffered when assaulted. But ” ‘victim photographs and other graphic items of evidence in murder cases always are disturbing.’ ” (People v. Scheid, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 19.) A trial court may admit photographs of victims even when the photographs are “gruesome” if “the charged offenses were gruesome” and the photographs “[do] no more than accurately
Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing the defense‘s request to publish the photographs in black and white instead of color. As the trial court noted at the pretrial hearing, color photographs better depict the “reality” of the scene and the injuries to the victim. The court did not err when it refused to “sanitiz[e] the crime scene by trying to disguise blood” through use of black and white photography. (See People v. Mathis (1965) 63 Cal.2d 416, 423 [“It is difficult for a reviewing court to determine if black-and-white would be less inflammatory than color pictures, but considering the subject matter it appears unlikely that the difference would be significant. Since the pictures unquestionably did have evidentiary value and since the trial court thoughtfully weighed the alternatives before ruling, we do not find an abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs into evidence.“].)
B. Penalty Phase Issues
1. Admission of Victim Impact Evidence
Morales argues that the victim impact testimony of surviving family members was “so voluminous, inflammatory and unduly prejudicial” that it violated his rights to due process and a fair trial under the
a. Background
As noted above, at the penalty phase of trial, several of the victims’ surviving relatives testified. Raquel Trejo (Maritza‘s daughter, Mike‘s stepdaughter, and Jasmine‘s sister) testified first. Raquel detailed the day she found the house in disarray and learned that her family had been killed; she was in shock and disbelief until she finally realized they were really dead. She then described her relationship with each of the victims.
Raquel was also very close to her mother, whom she considered a friend. Since moving to the United States, Raquel had enjoyed her time with her mother, whom she described as always happy and very hardworking. She lamented no longer having her mother to confide in. As for Mike, Raquel testified he treated her like she was his daughter and he was always proud of her. Now she no longer had his support or her family around to celebrate with her. And Raquel described Ana as very sweet, someone who always made sure everyone in the family was okay. Raquel then testified that she participated in therapy for two years before enrolling in college, and that recently she had restarted therapy and was taking medicine to help her concentration. She testified she sometimes felt guilty for not being present when the murders occurred. Lastly, she identified Jasmine in a one-minute video clip that showed Jasmine playing with a friend. Raquel indicated that the clip reflected Jasmine‘s happy demeanor.
The next witness was Kenelly Zeledon, Maritza‘s sister-in-law. Zeledon remembered the nightmare of finding the victims in the home. She described Mike as a lovely, outgoing, and happy man; Maritza as outgoing, always laughing and joking, and an outstanding salesperson; and Ana as a very caring
Miguel Rodriguez, Sr., also testified. He was Mike‘s father and Ana‘s son. When he found out about the murders, his life turned upside down. Ana was Rodriguez‘s best friend; he was her only son, so they were very close. He identified a photo of Ana and himself on Mother‘s Day. He was also very close to his son Mike, whom he described as his best friend. He got along with Maritza, who took care of the family, and he really loved Jasmine, whom he described as very intelligent. After their deaths, everything changed for Rodriguez; he lost his job, he could no longer sleep, and he was nervous. Rodriguez‘s wife, Luz Ruiz, testified that she saw the family at least three times per week and had relied on Mike when they needed things. She described Jasmine as a happy child. She confirmed that the murders had significantly affected Rodriguez, saying he was no longer the same man and that he was now very depressed.
Mike‘s younger sister, Olga Lizzette Ruiz, testified that Mike was her mentor; he was very trusting and friendly, a great
b. Discussion
Morales argues that the victim impact evidence in this case was so voluminous and inflammatory that it invited the jury to abandon its role as a neutral arbiter and instead to impose a penalty of death based on its “passionate, irrational, and purely subjective response to the sorrow of the surviving Ruiz family members.” Morales‘s argument does not focus on any specific testimony or pieces of evidence; his argument
Victim impact evidence is generally relevant and admissible as a circumstance of the crime under
The victim impact evidence in this case falls within constitutional bounds. The five victim impact witnesses testified ” ‘about their relationship with’ the victims, ‘how they learned about’ the victims’ deaths, аnd how the murders ‘affected their lives.’ ” (People v. Mendez, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 712.) Their testimony ” ‘concerned the kinds of loss that loved ones commonly express in capital cases,’ ” such as “recounting basic facts about [the victims],” speaking “of their love of [the victims], special moments they shared with [them], their feelings upon learning of [their] death[s] . . . and how the manner in which [the victims] died affected them and various family members.” (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 70; see also People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 783 [finding permissible testimony “concerning the victim‘s character“].) And “[t]he details of that testimony were not materially more
Nor was the testimony excessive. The prosecution called five witnesses to testify about four victims. (Cf. People v. Mendez, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 712 [“[P]ermitting victim impact testimony from six witnesses regarding two victims — that is, three per victim — is comparable to what we have permitted in other cases.“].) And each witness‘s testimony was relatively brief, with the testimony of all five witnesses spanning just 52 total pages of transcript. (See People v. Dykes, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 782 [testimony not “too extensive” where it spanned 32 pages of transcript for a single victim].)
Admission of the eight photographs depicting the four victims likewise was constitutional. A set of eight photographs depicting everyday events in the lives of the victims is not excessive. (See People v. Mendez, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 712 [“Admitting some 13 photos of [the first victim] and fewer of [the second victim] likewise was not excessive under our cases.“]; People v. Jones, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 69–70 [32 photographs for single victim not improper].) The photographs here “of ordinary family events were factual, relevant, and not unduly emotional or sentimental.” (Jones, at p. 71.) The same is true of Jasmine‘s drawing, in which she said she loved her family and her sister. The drawing provided relevant information about the relationship between Jasmine and Raquel and did not invite the jury to rule based on emotion. (Cf. Mendez, at pp. 713–714 [finding victim‘s poem bemoaning gang violence admissible].) We have also previously allowed trial courts to admit pictures of the victims as children where the viсtims were still young when they were killed. (See id., at p. 712, fn. 3.) Here, the
Finally, we see no error in permitting the prosecution to introduce the minute-long video clip of Jasmine playing with a friend. We have previously found relatively short home videos to be admissible victim impact evidence. In People v. Dykes, supra, 46 Cal.4th 731, for example, we upheld the admissibility of an eight-minute videotape (without audio) that showed the child victim preparing for and taking a trip to Disneyland with his family. (Id. at pp. 784–785.) We found that “the material, which merely depicts ordinary activities and interactions between [the victim] and his family, was relevant to humanize the victim and provide some sense of the loss suffered by his family and society.” (Id. at p. 785.) And we noted that “[t]he videotape [was] an awkwardly shot ‘home movie.’ ” (Ibid.) It was not “a memorial, tribute, or eulogy“; it did not “contain staged or contrived elements, music, visual techniques designed to generate emotion, or background narration” or “convey any sense of outrage or call for vengeance or sympathy,” and it “last[ed] only eight minutes and [was] entirely devoid of drama” — it was merely “factual” and depicted “real events.” (Ibid.) For these reasons, and because the evidence “supplemented but did not duplicate” the witness‘s testimony, we held it admissible. (Ibid.; see also People v. Bell, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 128 [upholding admission of four-minute wedding video that resembled a home movie and was not enhanced in any way because it depicted “a real event in the victim‘s life, shortly before his murder“]; People v. Mendez, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 713 [upholding admission of portions of home video showing young victim‘s sixth grade graduation].) Like the video in People v. Dykes, the video of Jasmine was a
Morales also argues the trial court erred by failing to give his proposed victim impact instruction. In particular, after the conclusion of penalty phase testimony, the defense requested the trial court instruct the jury with a modified version of a supplemental instruction to CALJIC No. 8.85. The unmodified instruction states: “Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the specific harm caused by the defendant‘s crime. Such evidence, if believed, was not received and may not be considered by you to divert your attention from your proper role of deciding whether defendant should live or die. You must face this obligation soberly and rationally, and you may not impose the ultimate sanction as a result of an irrational, purely subjective response to emotional evidence and argument. On the other hand, evidence and argument on emotional though relevant subjects may provide legitimate reasons to sway the jury to show mercy.” Defense counsel requested the court give this instruction but delete the final sentence. The court declined, explaining the final sentence was necessary to inform the jury that it could consider evidence on emotional subjects in making its final decision. As a result, defense counsel withdrew the proposal, and the instruction was not given. The trial court did, however, give CALJIC No. 8.85, which lists the factors the jury must consider in determining whether it should impose a penalty of death, and CALJIC No. 8.84.1, which tells the jury, in relevant part: “You must neither be influenced by bias nor
Morales argues it was error to refuse to give the modified version of the supplemental instruction to CALJIC No. 8.85. We have previously rejected this same argument about this exact modified instruction. (See People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 506–507, fn. 22.) We have also repeatedly rejected similar arguments concerning proposed instructions similar to the full, unmodified supplemental instruction proposed in this case. (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 825 [collecting cases].) We have explained that the instruction is duplicative of CALJIC No. 8.84.1 and thus ” ‘would not have provided the jury with any information it had not otherwise learned.’ ” (Thomas, at p. 825, quoting People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 455.) Further, we have noted the instruction is both confusing and “misleading to the extent it indicates that emotions may play no part in a juror‘s decision to opt for the death penalty.” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 368, citing People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1195; see Zamudio, at pp. 368–369; People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 359 [finding proposed instruction “confusing” and “unclear as to whose emotional reaction it directed the jurors to consider with caution — that of the victim‘s family or the jurors’ own“].) As we have previously said, “[a]lthough jurors must never be influenced by passion or prejudice, at the penalty phase, they ‘may properly consider in aggravation, as a circumstance of the crime, the impact of a capital defendant‘s crimes on the victim‘s family, and in so doing [they] may exercise sympathy for the
This reasoning applies with equal if not greater force to Morales‘s request to instruct the jury with a modified version of the instruction that omitted its last sentence. Deleting the instruction‘s final sentence removes its only suggestion that jurors can consider emotions in reaching their decision. Without that sentence, the instruction becomes even more misleading to the extent it more strongly suggests that “emotions may play no part in a juror‘s decision to opt for the death penalty.” (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 368.) Because the proposed instruction would have been both duplicative and misleading, the trial court properly refused to give it.
2. Instruction with CALJIC No. 8.88
The court instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 8.88, subject to minor mоdifications requested by the defense and not at issue here. That instruction guides jurors in using aggravating and mitigating circumstances to arrive at a verdict.6 Morales objects to several aspects of the instruction.
First, Morales takes issue with the portion of the instruction that provides, “To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole.” (CALJIC No. 8.88.) He argues that this direction would permit a death sentence even if the jury determined that mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances. But as we have previously explained, the instruction, taken as a whole, “clearly stated that the death penalty could be imposed only if the jury found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating. There was no need to additionally advise the jury of the converse (i.e., that if mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating, then life
Second, Morales argues the instruction is incomplete because it fails to advise the jurors that they could opt for a life sentence even in the absence of mitigating evidence. (See People v. Duncan, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 979 [“The jury may decide, even in the absence of mitigating evidence, that the aggravating evidence is not comparatively substantial enough to warrant death.“].) We have repeatedly rejected this claim, explaining the instruction already adequately conveys the point. (E.g., People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 424–425; People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 457; People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1211.)
Third, Morales argues that the use of “so substantial” to describe the necessary relationship between aggravation and mitigation is unconstitutionally vague. This language did not render the instruction vague. (People v. Landry, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 123; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1128; People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1211; People v. Whalen, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 89.)
Finally, Morales complains that the jury was not told to determine whethеr death was the appropriate punishment, but rather to decide whether death was “warrant[ed].” This is a distinction without a difference. The entirety of the instruction left no doubt that the jury “could return a death verdict only if aggravating circumstances predominated and death is the appropriate verdict.” (People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 316.) The use of “warrants” in place of “appropriate” does not undermine this message. (People v. Landry, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 122; People v. Linton, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1211; Breaux, at p. 316.) To the contrary, ” ‘[b]y advising that a death verdict should be returned only if aggravation is “so substantial in comparison with” mitigation that death is “warranted,” the instruction clearly admonishes the jury to determine whether the balance of aggravation and mitigation makes death the appropriate penalty.’ ” (People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 320, quoting People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 171.)
3. Challenges to California‘s Death Penalty Scheme
Morales raises a series of challenges to the constitutionality of California‘s death penalty. We have considered and rejected each before. Because Morales offers no compelling arguments in favor of reconsidering these rulings, we again reject these arguments.
California‘s special circumstances (see
The failure to impose a specific burden of proof on the ultimate question of life or death is not unconstitutional. (People v. Henriquez, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 45; People v. Parker (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1184, 1232; People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 489–490.)
The federal Constitution does not require that the penalty jury issue written findings. (People v. Henriquez, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 46; People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 490; People v. Thompson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 1130.) Nor does it require intercase proportionality review. (Henriquez, at p. 46; Winbush, at p. 490; Thompson, at p. 1130; People v. Simon, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 149.)
The federal Constitution does not prohibit the use of prior unadjudicated criminal activity as an aggravating factor, nor does it require that such activity be found unanimously beyond
The use of the adjectives “extreme” and “substantial” in
The jury need not be instructed that potential mitigating factors may be considered only as mitigation and their absence may not be treated as a factor in aggravation. (People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 490; People v. Contreras (2013) 58 Cal.4th 123, 173.)
The equal protection clause does not require California to include in its capital sentencing scheme every procedural protection provided to noncapital defendants. The two groups are not similarly situated. (People v. Henriquez, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 45; People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 490; People v. Parker, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1234; People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 295.)
Morales contends California‘s regular use of capital punishment violates international norms of human decency and thus the
Finally, Morales argues these individual defects must be considered for their cumulative impact, rather than in isolation. He has identified no defects. Moreover, even when considered in combination, the aspects of California‘s scheme Morales highlights do not persuade us that California imposes capital punishment in a manner that violates the United States Constitution.
III. DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
KRUGER, J.
We Concur:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
CHIN, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
CUÉLLAR, J.
GROBAN, J.
Notes
Again assuming, for the sake of argument, thаt the trial court erred in allowing Delhauer‘s sequencing testimony, we are not persuaded that Morales has established penalty-phase prejudice. Delhauer‘s sequencing conclusions were relatively insignificant in the context of the case, and his testimony largely duplicated other evidence, including Morales‘s own report to police about the order of the murders. We see no reasonable possibility that exclusion of Delhauer‘s sequencing testimony would have altered the jury‘s consideration of whether Morales‘s psychiatric evidence sufficiently extenuated the gravity of the crime.
“It is now your duty to determine which of the two penalties, death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without possibility of parole, shall be imposed on . . . defendant.
“After having heard all of the evidence, and after having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, you shall consider, take into account and be guided by the applicable factors of aggravating and mitigating circumstances upon which you have been instructed.
“. . . .
“The weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean a mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale, or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. In weighing the various circumstances you determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances. To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole.”