Okazaki's roommate, Maria Hernandez, was shown a photographic lineup that did not include defendant's photograph, and she said one of the photographs resembled her attacker. Having viewed the photographs, we conclude, for the reasons that follow, that the photographs were properly admitted into evidence. With respect to that, there is no evidence upon which I might conclude so far that the defendant is in any way unable to understand and participate in the proceedings., Ten months later, on February 26, 1987, just prior to the weekend recess during a hearing on pretrial motions, the superior court judge sought time estimates from counsel regarding proceedings the following week and asked defense counsel: Are there any motions that you are considering as to other aspects of this case that should be filed or you are considering filing? lihtc compliance checklist. Upon investigation, they found a man named Richard Mena had been in and had gotten X-rays done, which showed he had an infected tooth so he would be back. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841.) Christopher Petersen drove his wife to the hospital. the benefit of a reasonable doubt prior to today with regard to his attentiveness it now is quite clear that good cause exists to excuse him because of his sleeping.. And I beg you to remember that in your deliberations. The court then selected an alternate juror to replace Juror Singletary and released the jury for the day, ordering them to return the following day and repeating the admonition to not allow yourself any exposure to any media representation about this case.. The bedroom had been ransacked. We have consistently upheld the introduction of autopsy photographs disclosing the manner in which a victim was wounded as relevant not only to the question of deliberation and premeditation but also aggravation of the crime and the appropriate penalty, all of which were at issue here. Family (2) See also Other Works | Publicity Listings | Official Sites View agent, publicist, legal and company contact details on IMDbPro Hey, I want a gun to play Russian Roulette. ] (Id. Duenas grabbed a telephone to call the police and returned to the balcony. ), The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed The California Constitution declares that Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all (Cal. She had a puncture wound in her head, two black eyes, and her face was bruised. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556, or Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. They were also concerned he was a copy cat of Charles Manson. Los Angeles County sheriff's detective Russell Uloth, testifying at Richard Ramirez's trial on 13 counts of murder, said he examined the body of Maxine Zazzara, In the process of finding the shoe to match it, investigators found out it was an Avia-brand shoe, an uncommon one at the time. After Maxine died, Richard mutilated her body with a knife and gouged out her eyes. at p. 742, fn. The court accepted defendant's waiver. Frank Moreno and Carmelo Robles responded and chased defendant down an alley. In this case he crawled into the house of Vincent and Maxine Zazzara, shooting both dead. The victim repeated her identification of defendant at trial. Nenette Evans: My Life With Bill As defendant acknowledges, we previously have rejected this contention. But the procedures to which defendant objected in the trial court, and which the trial court found did not produce a constitutionally significant underrepresentation of Hispanics, were not the procedures used to select his jury. Thus, in Dr. When he was arrested, defendant invited the police to kill him, and asked to borrow a gun so he could kill himself. Defendant fails to explain how either of these cases has any relevance to the present case. In addition to reading the list of factors set forth in section 190.3 and recounted in CALJIC No. The accuracy of determining if names on the two lists were duplicates would be increased if, in addition to the names, the birth date and address of the prospective jurors were compared. We need not, and do not, decide whether defendant validly waived his right to conflict-free counsel because defendant has not shown, and expressly disclaims an intention to show on appeal, that he was denied his right to conflict-free counsel. Relying upon our decision in Williams v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 736, 263 Cal.Rptr. The failure to do so forfeits the claim. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider whether defendant's refusal to remove his sunglasses as ordered by the court so that a witness could identify him showed a consciousness of guilt. The photographer testified that shadows cast by the car's roof would have obscured the face of the driver in a parked car. You don't understand me. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of eight of the victims because those photographs were irrelevant, gruesome, and highly inflammatory. Salerno as a sign of respect, but he also looked up to The Hillside Strangler a serial killer Salerno had previously apprehended. ), The court sustained the People's objection to numerous exhibits on grounds of lack of foundation and unintelligibility and lack of authentication, adding: But again, Gentlemen, I do have knowledge and I will accept the principle that all of the-virtually all of the local news media, including the small outlet media, local newspapers, ethnic-oriented publications, various language publications, have covered this case, if that is the point you are trying to make. Defendant did not object to, or move to quash, the new master list used to select the jury in the present case and thus has forfeited this issue. For the reasons that follow, the judgment is affirmed. Defendant argues that Prospective Juror Robert D. should have been excused for cause because he made it clear that he favored the death penalty as the appropriate punishment and would place a burden on a defendant to prove that death was not the appropriate punishment.. In a footnote to the reply brief, defendant states he inadvertently omitted these two bases for challenging the jury venire in his opening brief, adding without supporting argument or citation of authority that [t]hese grounds are also asserted as improper bases for underrepresentation and exclusion of potential jurors. We need not, and do not, resolve these contentions. As we explained in People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1087-1088, 259 Cal.Rptr. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue under section 1033, depriving him of his rights under article I, section 15 of the California Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Her skull had been fractured; the injury could have been caused by a hammer. ] (People v. Taylor (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1155, 1180, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 34 P.3d 937; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 899, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15. In People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 262 Cal.Rptr. ), Defendant requested the following jury instruction: One of the factors for you to consider in determining the penalty is the age of the defendant at the time of the offense(s). Defendant's palm print was found on the sink. M Oregon, WI 53575. The photographs also clarified the coroner's testimony. He had been shot in the head from close range. This court fully recognizes that the defendant has the right to retained counsel of his choice at all stages of the proceedings against him. Best of 2022 Top 250 Movies Most Popular Movies Top 250 TV Shows Most Popular TV Shows Most Popular Video Games Most Popular Music Videos Most Popular Podcasts. Whether defendant satisfied the second prong by showing that Hispanics were underrepresented in the jury venire depends in part upon how the community that serves as a basis for comparison is defined. As discussed above, defendant has failed to show any errors occurred during the guilt phase of his trial. Her blouse had been pulled up. He denied that he would always vote to impose the death penalty for first degree murder no matter what the circumstances that led to that conviction. He stated that he would not necessarily be committed from the outset to the imposition of the death penalty.. ] (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 666, 280 Cal.Rptr. Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), permits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime when relevant to prove some fact (such as intent ) other than his or her disposition to commit such an act. In order to be relevant to prove intent, the other crime must be sufficiently similar to support the inference that the defendant probably harbor[ed] the same intent in each instance. [Citations. An abuse of discretion may be found when the trial court's ruling falls outside the bounds of reason. [Citation. Receiving no reply, she sent her son to a neighbor's house by promising the child that the neighbor would give him popsicles and candy bars. As the four-part test is stated in the conjunctive, joinder may be appropriate even though the evidence is not cross-admissible (People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 423, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.). (a); 954.1), we apply the law predating Proposition 115. Defendant later asked the court to question the jurors regarding the effect of the juror's death, but the court was asked to rule on this request more than two weeks after the jury had resumed deliberations. The court admitted a photograph of the victim's face, which had a small wound on one cheek and two black eyes, noting that the court did not see anything ghastly about it or inflammatory. The two remaining photographs depicted head wounds. One reason is to assure[] the privacy of jury deliberations by foreclosing intrusive inquiry into the sanctity of jurors' thought processes. [Citation. Elyas A. had been killed by a single bullet to the head. I will be avenged. Gallegos identified defendant at trial. 204.) Maxine Zazzara's body was found in the bedroom lying on her bed, partially covered by a sheet. Only one person (0.3 percent) believed defendant was not responsible for the murders. Again, you know, he was nodding and he was asleep because I could hear him snoring, The court dismissed the juror over defendant's objection, stating: I have from time to time observed Mr. 702-705, 139 P.3d at pp. Please look through the Manual of Style and editing guidelines, before you start contributing, to follow proper page structure. Defendant made Carol K. and her son lie on the floor and covered them with a sheet. Under these circumstances, the court did not err in denying defense counsel's motion to appoint a psychiatrist to evaluate defendant. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellee. [Citations. On January 30, 1989, the court again asked defendant whether he preferred wearing a leg brace that would not be visible to the jury, rather than leg chains. Defendant put a gun to her head, covered her mouth with a gloved hand, and threatened to kill her if she made a sound. The Defendant: Yes. The court denied the motion, remarking: I have been observing the jury, and I did note on the day that I excused them, that they were visibly upset, quite frankly. 1692 [If a district court agrees to the multiple representation, and the advocacy of counsel is thereafter impaired as a result, the defendant may well claim that he did not receive effective assistance].) Defendant expressly does not claim on appeal that counsel were ineffective, noting that [a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will be separately presented in a related petition for writ of habeas corpus.. And I have no reason to believe that Channel 2 or Channel 7 or 9 or 13 or the rest of them are any different. He stated that death was a just punishment for certain crimes. When asked what crimes he had in mind, he answered: Mostly murder, I would think. He added that if the defendant were convicted of first degree murder and found to be eligible for the death penalty, he would vote to impose the death penalty unless he were convinced otherwise. The Night Stalker This morning, however, the issue is whether or not he is going to be restrained with shackles on his legs or with a more or less invisible leg brace and which is it to be? (People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 590, fn. jake randall scarlets rugby; masshealth staff directory. In any event, it is not required that all of the evidence be cross-admissible: Cross-admissibility of evidence is sufficient but not necessary to deny severance. She had a thumb cuff2 on her left thumb and her other thumb had blood on it. ] (People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1315, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259. At the urging of the defense, Arce conducted an experiment on a small sample of the registrar of voters and DMV lists, which resulted in an increase from 19 to 26 percent Hispanics when the DMV list was used as the primary list. The court instructed the jury that in determining the proper penalty it should disregard the instructions given at the guilt phase of the trial and consider any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character or record, adding again, You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle. The jurors further were instructed that they were free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider.. 13, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259; People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 126, fn. But defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object to the trial court's selection of the relevant community. You must not consider other cases or news reports, or speculate about actions for other authorities in arriving at a penalty verdict in this case. [] Refusal to sever may be an abuse of discretion where: (1) evidence on the crimes to be jointly tried would not be cross-admissible in separate trials; (2) certain of the charges are unusually likely to inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) a weak case has been joined with a strong case, or with another weak case, so that the spillover effect of aggregate evidence on several charges might well alter the outcome of some or all of the charges; and (4) any one of the charges carries the death penalty or joinder of them turns the matter into a capital case. His dad treated him poorly he would tie him to a cross in a graveyard overnight as a form of punishment. She stumbled and fell. (b).) 7. Some people in the crowd were holding the newspaper with defendant's photograph on the front page. These are the only aggravating circumstances that you may consider. The Court: Very well. Defendant admits, however, that [c]ounsel's failure to present mitigating evidence on appellant's behalf was not explained on the record. Defendant offers no support for his assertion that the likely cause of his attorneys' decision not to present further evidence at the penalty phase was a conflict of interest caused by his family, and we decline to speculate. We affirmed the resulting judgment, ruling that a trial court is required to conduct a competency hearing under section 1368 only if substantial evidence of incompetence is introduced, and adding that evidence that does no more than form the basis for speculation regarding possible current incompetence is not sufficient. The manager of Jennie Vincow's apartment building testified that the windows in the victim's apartment were in working order following the murder. (SPOILER ALERT: Do not read on if you dont want to know what happens in Night Stalker: Searching for a Serial Killer.). Defendant challenged Prospective Juror Robert D. for cause, because he indicated he would vote for the death penalty unless he were convinced otherwise. The court denied the prosecutor's request to stay the determinate sentence pending execution of the death sentence, but ordered that the determinate sentence be served after the death sentence was imposed. A man repeated, Help me, help me. The dispatcher sent an ambulance, which arrived within five minutes. ], as I have indicated before, nodding, and it seemed somewhat clear that-that Mr. We ruled that the judicial district, rather than the entire county was the relevant community, but we expressly declined to consider the Court of Appeal's alternate position, because the requirement that no juror in Los Angeles County be required to serve at a courthouse more than 20 miles from his or her residence had since been repealed (id. ), Section 1368 states: (a) If, during the pendency of an action and prior to judgment, a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant, he or she shall state that doubt in the record and inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent [] (b) If counsel informs the court that he or she believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent, the court shall order that the question of the defendant's mental competence is to be determined in a hearing which is held pursuant to Sections 1368.1 and 1369., In People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211, 989 P.2d 645, defense counsel asserted that his client was incompetent and moved for a hearing pursuant to section 1368. In addition, in the County of Los Angeles no juror shall be required to serve at a distance greater than 20 miles from his or her residence. (Stats.1980, ch. Each juror makes an individual evaluation of each fact or circumstance offered in mitigation of penalty. 885, 564 P.2d 1203.) A criminalist examined hairs recovered from the home of Maxon and Lela Kneiding and testified that they were dissimilar to defendant's hair. 82-85), defense counsel in the present case entered into a contract with both defendant and his family to represent defendant. He was previously married to Maxine Zazzara and Betty Grace Peterson Zazzara. ] (People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 673, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360, 110 P.3d 289, italics omitted. It wasnt until Ramirez left a pentagram, written with lipstick on the wall and on the leg of a victim, that investigators drew the connection to Satanic worship. [] [A] hearing is required only where the court possesses information which, if proven to be true, would constitute good cause to doubt a juror's ability to perform his duties (People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 343, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846. 6, 263 Cal.Rptr. In order to preserve this issue for review, the defendant must object to the panel or move to quash the jury venire on this ground. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 634, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) (People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 22, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673.) The court appropriately released the jury the day it learned of the juror's murder and resumed deliberations the following day only after observing the jurors' demeanor and inquiring of the jury foreperson whether the jury was ready to resume deliberations. [Defense Counsel]: You know that Mr. Hernandez [codefense counsel] has been in El Paso talking to friends and relatives about testifying on your behalf? Mr. Ramirez, would you rise, please, take your glasses off and face my clerk. Rose Hills Memorial Park. 3. There is no provision for a secret disclosure of counsel's feelings. All the channels had the same kind of mixture of hard news and fluff, and I don't see any point in sitting here watching, you know, all of the channels. [Citation.] Two days after the attempted murder of Whitney B., on July 7, 1985, a neighbor of Joyce Nelson noticed that a screen had been removed from Nelson's bedroom window. A .22-caliber bullet recovered from Ms. Kneiding's brain had been fired from the same gun that fired the bullets that killed Dale Okazaki and Tsai-Lian Yu. Defendant in the present case exhausted his peremptory challenges to the alternate jurors, but did not express dissatisfaction with the jury ultimately selected. We have repeatedly stressed that a defense counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase does not make the proceeding unreliable in constitutional terms so long as (1) the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof at both phases of trial consistently with the rules of evidence and a constitutionally sound death penalty scheme; (2) the death verdict was rendered in accordance with proper instructions and procedures; and (3) the penalty jury considered the relevant mitigating evidence, if any, that the defendant has chosen to introduce. Defendant took a ring and necklace she was wearing. In essence, defendant's claim is premature. Prospective Juror Robert D[. In the present case, defendant did not request such a limiting instruction. The prosecutor suggested that defendant again wear a leg brace rather than leg chains. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. We observed in Maxwell v. Superior Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 606, 615, 180 Cal.Rptr. Weeks also pointed out that the process of eliminating duplicate names from the two lists was inaccurate, because only the exact last name and the first four letters of the first name were compared. HUG, Circuit Judge: Dempster returned about 15 minutes later and noticed the car remained but defendant was gone. Defendant has presented no persuasive reason to reconsider our previous holdings. The jury returned a verdict of death at 11:00 a.m. On May 14, 1985, about 5:00 a.m., a police dispatcher received a 911 call from a residence in Monterey Park. That person was apprehended and questioned, but then released. Defendant refused to remove his sunglasses after being ordered to do so by the trial judge in open court. ), Defendant argues that his motion for severance should have been granted because many of the incidents were dissimilar and, thus, not all of the evidence would be cross-admissible. ), [T]he rule applied when the trial judge is not aware of the conflict (and thus not obligated to inquire) is that prejudice will be presumed only if the conflict has significantly affected counsel's performance (Mickens v. Taylor (2002) 535 U.S. 162, 172-173, 122 S.Ct. ), Even had defendant properly preserved the issue for appeal, the claim lacks merit because the instruction given as to age was sufficient. Sakina A. later identified defendant at a lineup and identified a television, a videocassette recorder, and several pieces of jewelry that police had recovered from Felipe Solano, who had purchased them from defendant. WebKettle Creek North Address 1300 Hemlock Drive Verona, WI 53593. It is clear, therefore, that Hispanics were not systematically excluded from the venire from which defendant's jury was chosen.9. READ MORE. Defendant, at one point in his opening brief, contends that his counsel's conflicts of interest with his family were the likely cause of his counsel's tactical decision not to present any mitigating evidence. at p. 476, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225. Defendant relies upon the bizarre nature of the criminal acts charged, [defendant]'s bizarre and abnormal behavior following his arrest, and the court's own questions at various court hearings regarding [defendant]'s competence. But none of these circumstances raised a question as to defendant's ability to understand the nature of the proceedings or assist counsel in his defense. All rights reserved. While being pulled over, Ramirez heard a broadcast of his kidnapping attempt on the cops radio and drew a pentagram on the hood of his stolen car and began running. Const., art. Several hours later, she awoke lying facedown on her bed covered with blood. Accordingly, either counsel may argue any such age-related inference in every case. (Ibid.). He has remembered things I have said at prior hearings and reported them back to me. The court stated it had no doubts about defendant's competency, and defendant interrupted the court to state: I am sane. Arturo Hernandez added that he and cocounsel have been visiting with Mr. Ramirez for a lengthy period of time. He argues that these strong counts should not have been joined with the weak counts involving Bell, Florence L., Cannon, and Nelson in which there was either no identification evidence or at best weak physical evidence that only tenuously linked appellant to the crimes. These charges can hardly be described as weak. html#8> [as of Aug. 7, 2006]. The third and fourth murders took place at the Whittier home of Vincent and Maxine Zazzara. You guys got me, the Stalker. He stayed with defendant until the police arrived, as a crowd formed. He continued to beat her, forcing her to swear upon Satan that she would not scream. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. Joseph Duenas was in his second-floor apartment when he heard a woman scream help me. He went onto his balcony and saw Yu struggling with a man near the curb. In counties with more than one court location, the rules shall reasonably minimize the distance traveled by jurors. I am aware of the fact that all of the local news media have given inordinate coverage to this case. The jury resumed deliberations the following day, August 16, 1989, but defendant moved to suspend deliberations to allow the jury a period of mourning. In response to the court's question, Daniel Hernandez confirmed that he had done extensive work interviewing potential witnesses in El Paso, and had located witnesses who are willing to come forth, but explained that the defense had decided not to present these witnesses. WebSee sales history and home details for 10234 Strong Ave, Whittier, CA 90601, a 3 bed, 3 bath, 2,012 Sq. We held that before the jury could be instructed that it could infer a consciousness of guilt, the trial court must determine as a matter of law whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, will sufficiently support the suggested inference. (Id. 79-2577. The trial court properly denied the request because it correctly was concerned that interrupting the jury's deliberations at that point to inquire about the effect of the juror's death would undermine the sanctity of deliberations. Defendant twice asserts in his opening brief that in People v. Ortiz, supra, 51 Cal.3d 975, 275 Cal.Rptr. 8.85, the prosecutor told the jury: You may consider those crimes [of which defendant was convicted] in aggravation in determining penalty in this case only once; you can't consider them in section a and section b. (See People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 492, fn. Defendant argues that the photographs had little, if any, relevance to the determination of guilt. To the contrary, the photographs were highly relevant to show the manner in which the victims were killed and the severity of their injuries. Defendant expressly chose to wear leg chains instead of a less visible, but more uncomfortable, leg brace, and has therefore waived any objection to that form of restraint.