SUPREME COURT COPY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEATH PENALTY CASE RONALD BRUCE MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant. SUPREME COURT FILED Los Angeles County Superior Court No. KA032 1 17 The Honorable Alfonso M. Bazan, Judge - 1 2008 Frederick K. ;)h~rtch Clerk RESPONDENT'S BRIEF - - -- .- Deputy- --:-.r. -& EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General PAMELA C. HAMANAKA Senior Assistant Attorney General KEITH H. BORJON Supervising Deputy Attorney General SHARLENE A. HONNAKA Deputy Attorney General JOHN R. GOREY Deputy Attorney General KAREN BISSONNETTE Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 129981 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 9001 3 Telephone: (2 13) 620-6426 Fax: (2 13) 897-6496 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
I. Guilt Phase Evidence 3
A. Prosecution's Case-In-Chief 3
1. Significant Events Prior To The Murder Of Officer Fraembs 3
a. Appellant Is Released On Parole On Certain Terms And Conditions 3
b. Appellant Purchases A Haskell .45-Caliber Handgun "To Take Care Of Business" 4
c. Jason Meyers Buys .45-Caliber Bullets For The Firearm, As Appellant Did Not Have Proper Identification 5
d. Appellant's Relationship With Johanna Flores 6 e
2. The Murder Of Officer Fraembs And The Events Immediately Preceding The Murder 8
3. The Police Respond To The Crime Scene 14
4. Significant Events Preceding And Following The Murder 17
a. The Observations Of Harry Lukens 17
b. Flores's Activities 18
c. Meyers, Hernandez And Arambula 2 1
d. Appellant's Pager 2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
e. The Search Of The Grier Street Residence 23
f. The Forensic Evidence 25
g. The Autopsy 27
h. Appellant Sells The Murder Weapon To Joseph Silva And Tells Silva, "I Killed A Cop With That Gun" 28
i. Appellant's Telephone Conversations 32
B. Defense Evidence 37
11. Penalty Phase Evidence 37
A. Aggravating Evidence
1. The Prior Violent Act
2. Victim Impact Evidence 40
B. Mitigating Evidence 44
ARGUMENT 47
I.. THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO STRIKE THE LYING-IN- WAIT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT, ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT, AND COMMITMENT ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT IT; FURTHERMORE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED BOTH THE LYING-IN-WAIT THEORY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND THE LYING- IN-WAIT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
THEREFORE THE JURY'S VERDICTS AND FINDINGS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
A. The Relevant Trial Proceedings
B. The Trial Court Lacked The Authority To Strike The Lying-In-Wait Special Circumstance; Therefore, This Court Should Order The'Judgment And The Abstract Of Judgment Modified To Reflect This Special Circumstance 54
C. There Was Substantial Evidence To Support A Jury Verdict Of First Degree Murder Based On A Lying-In-Wait Theory, And Also To Support A True Finding On The Lying-In-Wait Special Circumstance; Therefore, The Trial Court's Instructions To The Jury Were Properly Given 56
1. The Applicable Law 57
2. There Was Substantial Evidence To Support The Jury's Verdicts And Findings, And The Court's Instructions, On Lyng-In-Wait 59
a. The Evidence Showed A Substantial Period Of Watching And Waiting 59
b. The Evidence Showed Concealment Of Purpose 63
c. The Evidence Showed A Surprise Attack On The Unsuspecting Officer From A Position Of Advantage 64
3. No Reversal Is Required Assuming Any Deficiencies In The Lying-In-Wait Theory Of First Degree Murder, Or The Lying-In-Wait Special Circumstance 6 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4. Conclusion 66
11. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE JUR