~PRE~AE ·O·~ ·f'O·p~·( SUi"'d .', nn ·C·... Lfi«t"TI ~v ..L IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TH.E STATE OF CA.I.JFORl',n.A TUE PEOPLE OF um STATE OF:ALlFORNIA, I ll~ ~l·t·t l~d l"L·"'''n'Y',.,~." ~ ;~<.,)n 1,-, '":< >LdJ:v.p.-:.:.~,', ;~ . ):.{. - , . .;-}. ;.;. r\{... ;:-(.t ..... S064306 JOHN JOSE;<U FAMALARO. I CAFITAL CASE Dcp.:ndantandAPpeLb.ut.1 ••w.w~ ...~.._~,·...~.w.w.>...." ••••••~ ED\HTNI; (L HR(JV/N JR. AttnnK:y C'(~n(ml of the 5\\t:::: (If Cddbmia D/'>,NER. GILLETTE Chiz;f /s.:;;<:;;Jant Aj.l\~,m;y Gensnl G/JlY \V. SC.HONS Seni<.lr As;;,isi~mt /\Ymm~~T (ienl~n~l H01.J.. Y {>. \V"iJ..KFNS t4AH.U..YNL.. GE(}R(:;r I"kputy AH.orney Gt-:ntraJ S1nt,:, Bar No ]19231 110 \V;;;'A)~ S':;re« SHik lIon Sn:n fhegn, C/,. 911 Gi. PD. Ik~ 85166 San Dkgn, C'.A.9Zi.S6"5266 T<::kpbml';::: (619) 645<~n3S 'jY~r'{: (619) 6·45~2. ~ 91 Emf,) :kb:6lyn.G:;~)rw~~,:;;j'doj.v'Lgov /\ttcrrn(.~ys for Plaintiff and Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 GUILT PHASE 6 June Of 1991, Orange County, California 6 July 13, 1994, Prescott, Arizona 9 Post-Mortem OfDenise Hubber's Body, July 14 & 16, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona 11 Search OfFamalaro's House, July 14-26, 1994, Prescott, Arizona 16 Search OfFamalaro's Warehouse, July Of 1994, Laguna Hills, California 21 Forensic Examination Of Evidence By The Orange County Crime Lab 22 Additional Prosecution Evidence Introduced At Trial In 1997 29 DEFENSE CASE 31 PENALTY PHASE 33 PEOPLE'S CASE 33 Penal Code Section 190.3, factor (b) Evidence 33 Victim Impact Evidence 36 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page DEFENSE CASE 39 ARGUMENT 57 I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED FAMALARO'S MOTION FORA CHANGE OF VENUE FROM ORANGE COUNTY 57 A. Famalaro Fails To Show That He Demonstrated To The Trial Court That There Was A Reasonable Likelihood He Would Receive An Unfair Trial 58 B. The Pre-Trial Publicity Does Not Support A Presumption OfPrejudice 69 C. Famalaro Fails To Meet His Burden OfShowing Prejudice From Being Tried In Orange County 70 1. Voir Dire Demonstrated The Lack OfTaint OfJurors By Pretrial Publicity 72 2. The Juror Declarations Do Not Support A Finding OfActual Prejudice 79 II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED FAMALARO'S REQUEST FOR A SEQUESTERED JURY VOIR DIRE 80 III. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURORS WITH CALJIC NO. 2.06 86 IV. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO THE PROSECUTION'S BURDEN OF PROVING EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES AND SPECIAL ALLEGATIONS 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT DURING THE GUILT PHASE OF THE TRIAL 92 A. CALJIC Nos. 2.01 And 2.02 Are Valid Instructions 93 B. Standard Jury Instructions Did Not Result In The Jury Being Erroneously Instructed As To The Prosecution's Burden To Prove The Charges And Allegations Beyond A Reasonable Doubt 96 V. THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER AND FIRST DEGREE FELONY- MURDER 102 VI. THERE WAS NO INSTRUCTIONAL ERROR BASED ON FAILING TO REQUIRE JURY UNANIMITY AS TO WHETHER FAMALARO WAS GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER AND/OR FELONY MURDER 107 VII. THE VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DENISE HUBER'S PARENTS WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED BY THE COURT AND DID NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO PRINCIPLES 111 A. Admission OfVictim Impact Evidence Did Not Violate The Prohibition On Ex Post Facto Laws 114 B. None OfFamalaro's Due Process Rights Were Violated By The Admission OfThe Victim Impact Evidence 117 VIII. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE USE OF 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE TRIAL 124 IX. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED THE PROFFERED HEARSAY EVIDENCE BY FAMALARO'S SISTER 129 A. Famalaro Waived His Claim OfConstitutional Error 131 B. Famalaro's Claim OfError OfA Constitutional Magnitude Is Meritless 133 C. Famalaro Was Not Prejudiced By The Exclusion OfThe Proffered Hearsay 140 X. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY WITH CALJIC NO. 2.27 141 XI. NONE OF FAMALARO'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF HIS PRIOR CRIMINAL ACTS IN THE PENALTY PHASE OF HIS TRIAL 145 XII. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE PENALTY PHASE OF HIS TRIAL 153 A. As Famalaro's Claims Were Not Presented To The Trial Court, They Are Waived 153 B. Giving The Modified Versions OfCALJIC Nos. 8.85 and 8.88 Did Not Violate Famalaro's Constitutional Rights 157 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page XIII. CALJIC No. 8.88 PROPERLY INSTRUCTS THE JURY ON THE SCOPE OF ITS SENTENCING DISCRETION 158 XIV. CALIFORNIA'S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL 162 XV. INTERCASE PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED 165 XVI. CALIFORNIA'S DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURE DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, NOR DOES IT VIOLATE THE EIGHTH OR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 166 XVII. FAMALARO'S CUMULATIVE ERROR CLAIM SHOULD BE REJECTED 167 CONCLUSION 168 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 120 S.Ct. 2348 147 L.Ed.2d 435 105, 106, 108-111, 147, 148, 150, 163, 164 Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 124 S.Ct. 2532 159 L. Ed.2d 403 108, 148, 150, 164 Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 107 S.Ct. 2529 96 L.Ed. 2d 440 112-114, 119 Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370 110 L.Ed.2d 1190 108 L.Ed.2d 316 129 Cage v. Louisiana (1990) 498 U.S. 39 111 S.Ct. 328 112 L.Ed.2d 339 95 Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 U.S. 386 1 L.Ed. 648 115 California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538 107 S.Ct. 837 93 L.Ed.2d 934 118 VI TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Carmel v. Texas (2000) 529 U.S. 513 120 S.Ct. 1620 146 L.Ed.2d 577 114-116 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 87 S.Ct. 824 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 141 Covarrubias v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1168 82, 83 Cunningham v. California (2007) _ U.S. _ 127 S.Ct. 856 166 L.Ed.2d 856 148-150, 164 Dobbert v. Florida (1977) 432 U.S. 282 97 S.Ct. 2290 53 L.Ed.2d 344 112, 115 Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238 92 S.Ct. 2726 33 L.Ed.2d 346 119 Green v. Georgia (1979) 442 U.S. 95 99 S.Ct. 2150 60 L.Ed.2d 738 135 Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153 96 S.Ct. 2909 49 L.Ed.2d 859 166 VB TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Harris v. Pulley (9th Cir. 1988) 885 F.2d 1354 69, 70 Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Ca1.3d 1 81,82,84 In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Ca1.3d 391 79 In re Walker (1974) 10 Ca1.3d 764 103 Irvin v. Dowd (1961) 366 U.S. 717 81 S.Ct. 1639 6 L.Ed.2d 751 69-71 Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 587 119 Mansfield v. State (Fla. 2005) 911 So.2d 1160 111 McCleskey v. Zant (1987) 481 U.S. 279 107 S.Ct. 1756 95 L.Ed.2d 262 166 Murphy v. Florida (1975) 421 U.S. 794 95 S.Ct. 2031 44 L.Ed. 2d 589 70 Nebraska Press Assn v. Stuart (1976) 427 U.S. 539 96 S.Ct. 2791 49 L.Ed.2d 683 70 Vlll TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Neill v. Gibson (10th Cir. 2001) 278 F.3d 1044 116 Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808 111 S.Ct. 2597 115 L.Ed.2d 720 111-114,119-123 People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 207 64 People v. Alcala (1992) 4 Ca1.4th 742 140 People v. Allen (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 1222 113,150 People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.AppAth 1241 143 People v. Anderson (1966) 64 Ca1.2d 633 86 People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Ca1.4th 543 118,146,147,163-165 People v. Arias (1996) 13 Ca1.4th 92 157 People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Ca1.3d 144 146, 151 People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Ca1.4th 1044 129 People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Ca1.3d 68 97 IX TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953 86, 167 People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 69 109 People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754 129 People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 81 People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297 164 People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659 57,58,67 People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808 86, 154, 160 People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153 82, 86, 108, 163 People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 412 146 People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381 150, 157, 160-162 People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281 161 People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512 118, 135, 136, 158 People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 383 146, 150, 163, 166 x TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 833 163, 165, 166 People v.