2 Cal. 4th 271, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 276, 826 P.2d 274 (1992)
In August 1980 at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, inmate Charles Gardner walked down a first-floor corridor lined with fellow inmates and sustained eleven stab wounds.1 Gardner seized a knife left on the floor and pursued codefendant Archie Menefield up the stairs, where he stabbed correctional officer Albert Patch; both Gardner and Patch died shortly afterward from their injuries.2 Defendant Curtis Roberts and Menefield were jointly tried on charges of first-degree murder of Gardner and Patch, conspiracy to commit murder, assault by a life prisoner resulting in death, and possession of a weapon by an inmate, with special circumstance allegations of a prior first-degree murder conviction, multiple murders, and lying in wait as to Gardner.3
The prosecution presented inmate witnesses who testified that Roberts stabbed Gardner repeatedly and that Menefield restrained Gardner.4 The testimony indicated the attack occurred during a Black Guerrilla Family dispute or after an insult.5 It also offered expert testimony describing BGF practices and Gardner's rapid descent into hypovolemic shock, supporting the theory that Gardner acted as an unconscious agent when he stabbed Patch.6 Defendant presented evidence that he was seen on the third floor immediately after the alarm sounded, that prosecution witnesses had received state benefits creating a motive to lie, and that Gardner had expressed hatred for guards and remained capable of independent action when he attacked Patch.7
At the penalty phase the prosecution introduced Roberts's 1970 first-degree murder conviction for killing a high school security guard.8 The prosecution also introduced evidence of additional prison stabbings and BGF materials found in his cell.9 Defendant testified about his abusive childhood in Watts, his mother's alcoholism, and his attempts to leave the Black Guerrilla Family.10 The jury convicted Roberts on all counts, found the special circumstances true, and returned a death verdict for Gardner's murder and the section 4500 violation while imposing life without parole for Patch's murder.11
Following the death judgment the case came before the Supreme Court of California on automatic appeal.12
Whether evidence of the defendant's membership and activity in the Black Guerrilla Family was properly admitted at the guilt phase?13
Evidence of gang membership and activity is admissible when relevant to prove motive or identity. The probative value must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice.14
Yes. The prosecution offered evidence to support two scenarios both based on a theory that Gardner was killed in a gang dispute.15 Inmate witnesses testified they saw defendant stab Gardner repeatedly and saw Menefield restrain Gardner when he tried to escape.16 The court allowed the testimony after finding it relevant to motive and identity.17
The evidence of Black Guerrilla Family membership and activity was properly admitted at the guilt phase.18
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence that the state paid to remove a tattoo from prosecution witness Cade?19
When a claim of privilege under Evidence Code section 1040 is sustained the court must make an order or finding of fact adverse to the prosecution on any issue to which the privileged information is material.20
Yes. The defense sought to have a tattoo specialist testify that the state paid one hundred dollars to remove a tattoo from Cade.21 The court sustained the prosecution's privilege claim and quashed the subpoena.22 The court also refused the defense request for an admonition that Cade had received additional benefits.23
The trial court erred in excluding the tattoo-removal evidence and in refusing the requested admonition.24
Whether admission of codefendant Menefield's statements through inmate witnesses violated the defendant's confrontation rights?25
A hearsay declaration of one defendant that incriminates another in a joint trial is inadmissible because it violates the nondeclarant defendant's federal confrontation rights. The statement is admissible only if made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.26
Yes. Witnesses Rooks and Long described a conversation in which Menefield said he was going with defendant to resolve the dispute with Gardner.27 The court overruled a Bruton-Aranda objection after finding the statement was made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy.28 The record does not reveal that the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.29
Admission of Menefield's statements violated the defendant's confrontation rights but the error was harmless.30
Whether the jury was properly instructed on consciousness of guilt from the defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test?31
A consciousness-of-guilt instruction may be given when the evidence shows the defendant refused a blood test. The refusal must not be protected by the Fourth or Fifth Amendment.32
Yes. The prosecution introduced evidence that defendant had refused to take a blood test and that a court order had been obtained.33 The Fifth Amendment claim is without merit because the evidence was not testimonial but physical.34 The record does not explain whether defendant refused for reasons within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.35
The jury was properly instructed on consciousness of guilt from the defendant's refusal to submit to a blood test.36
Whether the jury was properly instructed on proximate cause for the death of Officer Patch?37
A defendant is the proximate cause of a third person's death only if the third person's act is a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act. The result must not be too remote or accidental to have a bearing on the actor's liability.38
No. The court instructed the jury that it was immaterial whether the defendant could reasonably have foreseen the harmful result if Gardner was unconscious due to hypovolemic shock.39 The instruction removed the element of proximate cause from the jury's consideration.40 Gardner pursued Menefield up the stairs after being stabbed by defendant and stabbed Patch in a reflexive struggle.41
The jury was not properly instructed on proximate cause for the death of Officer Patch and the conviction must be reversed.42
Whether sufficient evidence supported the lying-in-wait special circumstance for the murder of Gardner?43
The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires concealment of purpose. It also requires a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act. Immediately thereafter there must be a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage.44
Yes. It was undisputed that Gardner was killed as he walked a gauntlet of inmates lounging against the walls of a corridor.45 Evidence showed defendant had been loitering in the hall for a few minutes before the attack.46 The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder for the killing of Gardner and also found the special circumstance of lying in wait was true.47
Sufficient evidence supported the lying-in-wait special circumstance for the murder of Gardner.48
Whether the trial court erred in replacing an ill juror after consulting the jury's preference?49
A juror may be replaced if ill. The court must determine that good cause exists to discharge the juror and its reasons must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality. The court must not permit jurors to exercise control over the composition of the jury.50
The trial court did not err in replacing the ill juror after consulting the jury's preference.53
Whether the penalty phase should have been severed from codefendant Menefield's penalty trial?54
The trial court has discretion to deny a motion to sever penalty trials. The statutory preference for a joint penalty trial following a joint guilt trial must be considered.55
No. Defendant argued the lack of cross-admissible evidence mandated a severed trial.56 The court did not abuse its discretion particularly in light of the undisputed statutory preference for a joint penalty trial.57 The jury's careful consideration of its penalty verdict demonstrates that defendant received an individualized determination of culpability.58
The penalty phase was properly tried jointly with codefendant Menefield's penalty trial.59
Whether the multiple-murder special-circumstance finding must be set aside when the conviction for the murder of Officer Patch is reversed?60
A multiple-murder special-circumstance finding requires two or more first-degree murder convictions. The finding must be set aside when one of the murder convictions is reversed.61
Yes. The jury found true the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation that defendant had committed multiple murders.62 The conviction for the murder of Patch must be reversed for instructional error on proximate cause.63 The multiple-murder special-circumstance finding therefore cannot stand because it requires two or more first-degree murder convictions.64
The multiple-murder special-circumstance finding must be set aside.65