Respondent's Brief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNI4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CAPITAL CASE JACK EMMIT WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. Riverside County Superior Court No. CR49662 Honorable Timothy Heaslett, Judge RESPONDENT'S BRIEF EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLEITE Chief Assistant Attorney General GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General ADRlANNE S. DENAULT Deputy Attorney General ANTHONY DA SILVA Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 159330 110 West A Street, Suite 1 100 San Diego, CA 92 10 1 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92 186-5266 Telephone: (61 9) 645-2608 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: Anthony.DaSilva@doj .ca.gov Attorneys for Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS Guilt Phase The Prosecution's Case Circle K Store (Count Three) "Pimp-Style Hustlers'' Meeting Dilly's Parking Lot (Counts Four And Five) Terra Bella Street (Count Six) Movie Theater Parking Lot (Count Seven) L.A. Times Office (Counts Eight And Nine) Murder Of Yvonne Los (Counts One And Two) Post-Murder Celebration Taco Bell Parlung Lot (Counts Ten And Eleven) Williams And Others Arrested Williams's Statements Physical And Scientific Evidence Other Co-Defendant's Cases The Defense Case Testimony Of Jason D. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Testimony Of Kiesha L. 6 1 Penalty Phase 67 Prosecution Evidence 67 Impact Of The Murder On Los's Family 67 Los's Parents Los's Siblings Los's Former Husband And Children 7 1 Los's Personal Characteristics 79 Williams's Lack Of Remorse 8 1 Williams's Violent Criminal Activities 8 1 Williams's Potential To Endanger Others In Prison 84 Defense Evidence 94 Impact Of Penalty On Williams's Family 94 Williams's Personal Characteristics 96 Testimony Regarding The Mario Loa Incident 99 Testimony Regarding The Jail Assault Of Michael Hanna 100 Conditions Of Williams's State Prison Confinement 100 Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence 100 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page ARGUMENT 102 I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISCHARGED JUROR NO. 12 WHO FORMED AN OPINION AND DISCUSSED IT WITH OTHER JURORS BEFORE THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED 11. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISCHARGED JUROR NO. 10 WHO WAS SLEEPING AND REFUSED TO DELIBERATE 111. THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THE JURY DELIBERATED AFTER JUROR NO. 10 WAS REPLACED IV. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTRUCT THE JURY WITH ANY LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF FIRST DEGREE FELONY MURDER V. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RESPONDED TO THE JURY'S QUESTION REGARDING THE LIABILITY OF PRINCIPALS VI. THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES DOCTRINE VII. THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INFORM THE JURY THAT THE NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES DOCTRINE IS AN OBJECTIVE TEST TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page VIII. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY 197 IX. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTRUCT THE JURORS THEY HAD TO UNANIMOUSLY AGREE AS TO CONSPIRACY X. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT XI. SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE JURY'S FINDING OF THE ROBBERY- MURDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE XII. WILLIAMS'S LEGS WERE PROPERLY SHACKLED AND HE WAS NOT PREJUDICED BECAUSE THE JURY WAS NOT AWARE THAT HE WAS RESTRAINED XIII. WILLIAMS'S DEATH SENTENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENT OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OR INTERNATIONAL LAW XIV. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGED BY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE xv. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE MEANING OF LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page XVI. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADMITTED VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE 256 XVII. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE APPROPRIATE USE OF VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE XVIII. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTRUCT ON LINGERING DOUBT XIX. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY WITH CALJIC NO. 8.85 XX. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY WITH CALJIC NO. 8.88 XXI. THE DEATH PENALTY WAS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO WILLIAMS'S CULPABILITY XXII. WILLIAMS IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF BASED UPON INTERNATIONAL LAW XXIII. WILLIAMS'S CHALLENGES TO THE CAPITAL SENTENCING SCHEME LACK MERIT 277 A. California's Death Penalty Statute Performs The Narrowing Function 277 B. Factor (a) Does Not Permit Arbitrary And Capricious Imposition Of The Death Penalty 277 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page C. California's Statutory Scheme Does Not Lack Procedural Safeguards 278 XXIV. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ANY ERRORS DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL 280 XXV. WILLIAMS WAIVED HIS CLAIM THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDER HIS ABILITY TO PAY A $10,000 RESTITUTION FINE BY HIS FAILURE TO OBJECT TO ITS IMPOSITION OR REQUEST A HEARING -ON THE MATTER CONCLUSION TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Alcocer v. Superior Court (1 998) 206 Cal.App.3d 95 1 Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 120 S.Ct. 2348 147 L.Ed.2d 435 Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 961 125 S.Ct. 21 159 L.Ed.2d 85 1 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 87 S.Ct. 824 17 L.Ed.2d 705 Darden v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168 106 S.Ct. 2464 91 L.Ed.2d 144 Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637 94 S.Ct. 1868 40 L.Ed.2d 43 1 Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 102 S.Ct. 3368 73 L.Ed.2d 1 140 Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Hicks v. Oklahoma (1980) 447 U.S. 343 100 S.Ct. 2227 65 L.Ed.2d 175 Hicks v. State (1997) 327 Ark.727 940 S.W.2d 855 In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273 In re Lynch (1 972) 8 Cal.3d 4 10 In re Travis W. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4t.h 368 Jessen v. Hartford Casualq Ins. Co. (2003) 11 1 Cal.App.4t.h 698 Leverson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 530 Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808 11 1 S.Ct. 2597 115 L.Ed.2d 720 People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4t.h 472 People v. Alonso (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 535 People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Anderson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1646 196 People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543 227,229,280 People v. Antoine (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 489 222,274 People v. Arias (1 996) 13 Cal.4th 92 254 People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932 130 People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491 268,280 People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144 222 Cal.Rptr. 184 71 1 P.2d 480 People v. Barnwell (2007) 4 1 Cal.4th 1038 People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68 People v. Bell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 582 People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744 People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Benenato (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 350 disapproved on another ground in In re Wright (1967) 65 Cal.2d 650 People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048 People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108 People v. Bohana (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 360 People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 5 15 People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 3 13 People v. Bowers (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 722 People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 38 1 People v. Bradford (1 997) 15 Cal.4t.h 1229 People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142 People v. Brown (2003) 33 Cal.4th 382 People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4t.h 833 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Bustos (1 994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1747 2 19,225 People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1 21 1 People v. Carey (2007) 4 1 Cal.4th 109 People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 11 14 People v. Castorena (1 996) 47 Cal.App.4th 105 1 People v. Cavitt (2004) 33 Cal.4th 187 People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950 People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704 People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466 People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1 People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158 People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Cook (1 984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1142 200 People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50 246,247,271 People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 61 8 197,226,280 People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 91 6 233,245,247,249,280 People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833 212 People v. Crew (2003) 3 1 Cal.4th 822 278 People v. Croy (1985) 41 Cal.3d 1 192, 193, 198,202 People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926 103,248 People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815 104, 130 People v. Davis (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 28 207 People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463 188 People v. Davis (1 989) 2 11 Cal.App.3d 3 17 20 1 People v. Deletto (1 983) 147 Cal.App.3d 458 206 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v.