Ec 0 PY SUPREME COURT COPY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, SO48440 CAPITAL CASE CHRISTOPHER CHARLES LIGHTSEY, Defendant and Appellant. SUPREME COURT Kern County Superior Court No. 56801A FILED The Honorable John I. Kelly, Judge NOV 1 5 2007 F rederick K. Ohlrich Clerk RESPONDENT'S BRIEF EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL P. FARRELL Senior Assistant Attorney General ERIC L. CHRISTOFFERSEN Deputy Attorney General J UDY KAIDA Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 1176 i 0 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 327-0306 Fax: (916) 324-2960 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent 777 7 7 n 7-71.7 ,r7 _ . rirn n fl \ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 Defense 34 Rebuttal 43 PENALTY PHASE 45 People's Case 45 Defense 47 ARGUMENT 55 I. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING APPELLANT MENTALLY COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL 55 A. Judge Lee Felice's March 7, 1994, Finding Of Mental Competence 57 1. Judge Felice Was Not Required To Appoint Two Evaluators To Examine Appellant Under Section 1369, Subdivision (a), Because Neither Appellant Nor The Defense Counsel Expressly Informed The Court That Appellant Was Not Seeking A Finding Of Incompetence 60 2. Judge Felice's Finding That Appellant Was Competent Was Supported By Substantial Evidence 63 B. Judge Kelly's Rulings Regarding Appellant's Competence 66 1. Judge Kelly Properly Denied Defense Counsels' Request To Initiate Competency Proceedings On April 8, 1994 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 2. Judge Kelly Properly Found Appellant Competent On July 28, 1994 69 a. Judge Kelly Properly Allowed Appellant To Continue To Represent Himself During The Second Competency Proceedings 75 b. Judge Kelly Did Not Believe That Dr. Velosa Had Found Appellant Competent To Stand Trial 82 c. Judge Kelly Properly Allowed Appellant To Waive His Right To A Jury Trial On The Issue Of Competency 82 d. There Is No Cumulative Effect Of The Alleged Errors Occurring During The July 28, 1994, Competency Proceedings 83 3. Judge Kelly Was Not Required To Institute Competency Proceedings Sua Sponte On September 27, 1994 84 4. Judge Kelly Was Not Required To Initiate Additional Competency Proceedings Before And During Appellant's Trial 94 5. Judge Kelly Was Not Required To Initiate Competency Proceedings During The Penalty Proceedings 100 II. APPELLANT HAS FORFEITED HIS EVIDENTIARY CLAIMS REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF THE REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPTS OF THE UNRELATED CASES; THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN RESTRICTING THE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S CLOSING ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE 104 A. Relevant Proceedings 105 B. Alleged Exclusion Of Reporter's Transcripts Of Unrelated Cases In Department 10 On July 7, 1994 119 C. Restriction of Defense Counsel Dougherty's Closing Argument 129 III. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN EXCLUDING THE DRUG USE AND MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE OF KAREN LEHMAN 132 A. Relevant Proceedings 132 B. I mpeachment With Alleged Past and Present Drug Use 137 C. Impeachment With Misdemeanor Conviction Of Assault With A Deadly Weapon 145 I V. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN EXCLUDING THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS TO BEVERLY WESTERVELT AND DUTLER DAUWALDER 148 A. Relevant Proceedings 148 B. Appellant's Statements In His Letters To Beverly Westervelt 151 C. Appellant's Statements To Dut Dauwalder 156 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page V. NO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OCCURRED; THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL 158 A. Relevant Proceedings 158 B. Beverly Westervelt's Testimony That Appellant's "Return Address Is Wasco" 163 C. Robert Rowland's Testimony That He (Rowland) Was Housed In A Protective Housing Unit 165 VI. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY WITH APPELLANT'S ALIBI INSTRUCTION 166 A. Relevant Proceedings 167 B. The Trial Court Properly Rejected The Special Alibi Instruction 171 VII. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY SUA SPONTE TO DISREGARD APPELLANT'S SHACKLES BECAUSE THE SHACKLES WERE NOT VISIBLE TO THE JURY 175 A. Relevant Proceedings 175 B. Appellant's Shackles Were Not Visible To The Jury 178 PENALTY PHASE ARGUMENTS 182 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page VIII. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT RESTRICT THE DEFENSE COUNSEL'S EXAMINATION OF PSYCHOLOGIST WILLIAM PIERCE 182 A. Relevant Proceedings 182 B. The Trial Court Did Not Restrict Defense Counsel Dougherty's Examination of Psycholgist Pierce 187 IX. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE PENALTY PHASE JURY THAT IT COULD CONSIDER APPELLANT'S CONDUCT DURING HIS ALTERCATION WITH KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DETENTION OFFICER CRISTOBAL JUAREZ AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR UNDER SECTION 190.3, SUBDIVISION (b) 193 A. Relevant Proceedings 193 B. The Trial Court Properly Instructed The Jury That It Could Consider Appellant's Conduct During His Altercation With Officer Juarez An Aggravating Factor Under Section 190.3, Subdivision (b) 196 X. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO ALLOW APPELLANT TO ADDRESS THE JURY BEFORE THE PENALTY VERDICT WAS ANNOUNCED 203 A. Relevant Proceedings 204 B. There Is No Statutory Or Constitutional Right To Make A Personal Statement To The Jury Prior To The Announcement of the Penalty Verdict 217 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page XI. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY SUA SPONTE TO DISREGARD APPELLANT'S SHACKLES BECAUSE THE SHACKLES WERE NOT VISIBLE TO THE JURY 221 XII. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL 222 A. Relevant Proceedings 222 B. The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant's Motion For A New Trial 224 XIII. THE APPELLATE REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT IMPERMISSIBLY INFLUENCED BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN CAPITAL CASES 228 XIV. APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED HIS INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS 228 XV. CAPITAL SENTENCING DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 229 A. Section 190.2 Is Not Impermissibly Broad 229 B. Section 190.3(a) Is Not Arbitrary And Capricious 230 C. The Jury Is Not Required To Find Unanimously Beyond A Reasonable Doubt That The Aggravating Factors Exist 230 D. The Jury Is Not Required to Find Beyond A Reasonable Doubt That The Aggravating Factors Outweigh The Mitigating Factors 232 E. The Jury Is Not Required To Find By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That The Aggravating Factors Exist, The Aggravating Factors vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Outweigh The Mitigating Factors, And Death Is The Appropriate Sentence 233 F. The Trial Court Is Not Required To Instruct The Jury That There Is No Burden of Proof 234 G. The Jury Is Not Required To Make Written Findings Of Aggravating Factors 234 H. Intercase Proportionality Is Not Required 234 I. The Use Of Restrictive Adjectives In Mitigating Factors Was Proper 235 J. The Trial Court Was Not Required To Instruct That Mitigating Factors Were Relevant Solely As Potential Mitigators 235 K. There Was No Denial Of Procedural Safeguards 236 L. Use Of The Death Penalty Does Not Violate International Law And/Or The Constitution 236 XVI. THERE IS NO CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS 238 CONCLUSION 240 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 231 Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279 156 Barnett v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 495 139, 140 Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 231 Boardman v. Estelle (9th Cir. 1992) 957 F.2d 1523 218, 219 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 60 Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284 153-155, 157, 189 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 passim Chia v. Cambra (9th Cir. 2002) 281 F.3d 1032 155 Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) 517 U.S. 348 55 Cupp v. Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141 174 Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308 147 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673 142 DePetris v. Kuykendall (9th Cir. 2001) 239 F.3d 1057 125 Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 402 85 Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 181 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 passim Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 469 76 Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335 79,81 Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 U.S. 389 85 Gonzales v Lytle (10th Cir. 1999) 167 F.3d 1318 124 Green v. Georgia (1979) 442 U.S. 95 155 Green v. United States (1961) 365 U.S. 301 220 Hill v. United States (1962) 368 U.S. 424 218, 220 Holloway v. Arkansas (1978) 435 U.S. 475 80, 81 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212 121, 131, 142 In re Ferguson (1971) 5 Ca1.3d 525 60 In re Muhammed C. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1325 199, 200 In re Seaton (2004) 34 Ca1.4th 193 120, 121, 131, 142 In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235 219 Jie v. Liang Tai Knitwear Co. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 654 224 Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63 155 Maine v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Ca1.2d 375 130 Mathews v.