These conflicting answers present the same issue as arose with Juror Gage. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 3d 629 [221 Cal. He then pushed the ice pick through Gilliam's ear; she screamed and fell dead. Robin R. was unable to identify defendant in person, her description of the interior of the van where she was held did not match defendant's van, and the manner of her kidnapping and rape differed from defendant's characteristic mode of operation. App. On October 31, 1979, 16-year-old Lynette was on her way home around 10.30 pm from a Halloween party in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles when she encountered two real-life monsters Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris, also known as the Tool Box Killers. We upheld the court's refusal to allow defense counsel to question those jurors for the purpose of rehabilitation, citing Ketchel. 61].) 3d 1084] 617, 367 P.2d 33]: "[C]ounsel for a defendant in a capital case has the right to question the prospective jurors on voir dire for the purpose of ascertaining whether any would vote to impose the death penalty without regard to the evidence in the event of a conviction. See other search results for Shirley Lynette Ledford Ready to discover your family story? Defendant's case is distinguishable from the cases upon which he relies (People v. Rios (1976) 16 Cal. 224, 591 P.2d 514], however, the court criticized the use of the "instrumentality of the crime" theory to justify the search of an automobile. FN 34. Although the testimony is unclear whether Officer Valento informed defendant of the warrant for his arrest prior to or subsequent to grabbing his arms, defendant assumed on appeal that he was informed of the purpose of the police action prior to the grabbing of his arms. 2d 620 [6 Cal. Since 1978, when California reinstated capital punishment, 82 condemned inmates have died from natural causes, 27 have committed suicide, 13 have been executed in California, one was executed in Missouri, one was executed in Virginia, 14 have died from other causes and four including Bittaker are pending a cause of death. App. In view of the jury's guilt phase verdict finding 38 special circumstances -- a verdict which necessarily rejected all the defense arguments -- and its subsequent verdict imposing the death penalty for each of the murders, it seems apparent that defense argument was not very persuasive. Three days after the police seized defendant's van, Sergeant Bynum and another officer entered it to search for bloodstains, semen stains, and other evidence of Ms. R.'s rape. (Hill, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. (Norris did not describe any torture of Gilliam.) 3d 1086] (1978) 22 Cal. We find, however, insufficient basis for reversal of the verdict. Brand's interviews with Bittaker during his final years in prison are the basis of the special. We do not so interpret the judge's ruling. Dr. Maloney said defendant was quite intelligent (I.Q. (d) The attempted abduction of Jan Malin. Defendant testified that none of the victims was restrained involuntarily in his presence. 3194]) or under California decisions which govern searches antedating DeLancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. After holding Shirley Ledford in the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger. 3d 749, 770 and cases there cited) or can justify his failure to do so (People v. Box (1984) 152 Cal. FN 7. In People v. Medina (1974) 41 Cal. fn. 3d 889, 896 [135 Cal. He claims that when the officers began seizing items contained in the van, rather than merely "examining" the van for its "evidentiary value," the officers went beyond the permitted examination. Shirley Lynette Ledford celebrated her last birthday 32 years ago when she was 16. One of these photographs, which shows Hall about to perform oral copulation on defendant, is in evidence. Thus the court should either have limited its instruction to convictions bearing on veracity or, when admitting the evidence, admonished the jury that it could not be used to impeach the credibility of the witness. By rejecting non-essential cookies, Reddit may still use certain cookies to ensure the proper functionality of our platform. "[T]he accused is not entitled to be personally present either in chambers or at bench discussions which occur outside of the jury's presence on questions of law or other matters in which defendant's presence does not bear a 'reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.'" That anyone could take such great pleasure from causing people such great pain and suffering just boggles my mind. 306, 606 P.2d 341].) Later during the voir dire defense counsel asked the judge to explain his ruling to defendant. The men then traded activities. In People v. Estorga (1928) 206 Cal. In Nye, supra, 71 Cal. [21] Juror Kuriki had not been exposed to media accounts of the case, and had no preformed opinions. We do not believe they can be altered by contract so as to limit the court to reviewing the district attorney's discretionary finding as to whether Norris told the truth. Subsequent cases, however, have steadily drawn back from the use of a per se standard. Upon returning two hours later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken. 2d 755 [290 P.2d 855]; Kaplin v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal. Failed to delete memorial. 3d 542 [146 Cal. But although we thus conclude that the prosecutor's comment was improper, since it does not come within the scope of Caldwell, supra, 472 U.S. 320, defense counsel's failure to object is fatal to his contention. Denial of defendant's challenges for cause. There are no volunteers for this cemetery. Defendant's motion to suppress the seized evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied by the trial court. Defendant was known to carry weapons. (People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal. Upon their return, defendant took additional nude photographs of Gilliam. 3d 1067] when Norris said they were killed. The prosecutor returned again and again to this topic, asking defendant nine times where the photographs were; each time defendant refused to reveal their location. And I made that type of ruling, and I've made that clear to the attorneys. Rptr. The warning of the prosecution injected a false and foreign weight in the scale of the rendition of a delicate, crucial decision." During voir dire, Juror Gage stated that "before I ever came here, I felt in my head he was already guilty." (Italics added. The next morning defendant took Lamp up a hill, took some photographs, and left her there. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/6681995/shirley-lynette-ledford. GREAT NEWS! (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal. Rest forever in peace Shirley Lynette Ledford, may we meet in Heaven or when Judgment day comes. 3. 538, 381 P.2d 394] and People v. Nye (1969) 71 Cal. 3d 1076] signed that portion of the opinion. The prosecutor challenged for cause. FN 2. Ms. R. also selected defendant's photograph out of a photographic lineup of potential suspects. 18. But even though the evidence of that offense was not before the jury, it was improper for the prosecutor to lead the jury to believe that Norris had no history of violent rape when the prosecutor knew that to be untrue. The prosecutor's description of the process by which the jury should decide the penalty verdict was inadequate because it left no place for a decision as to what penalty is appropriate. 3d 431 [247 Cal. [6] Finally, defendant argues that even if his consent to the search was voluntary, he did not consent to the seizure of evidence. He is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Defendant kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls, raped four of them, and tortured at least one. Found more than one record for entered Email, You need to confirm this account before you can sign in. [22] We have previously discussed the voir dire of Juror Porrazzo, and noted that her answer to a question asking whether she would automatically vote in favor of death was equivocal. Norris then moved into the driver's seat. Instantly, without saying a word, defendant stabbed Louie. Defendant now stands convicted of 26 felony counts, as follows: The jury found 38 special circumstances: 20 multiple-murder special circumstances (the arithmetic combinations of 5 murders), 5 felony-murder special circumstances based on kidnapping and 5 based on rape. Other portions of the prosecutor's argument, however, do not correctly state the law. Under this language, it is clear that if a jury actually found a 50.1 to 49.9 percent balance in favor of aggravation, it could properly refuse to impose a [48 Cal. FN 24. (She described the van in which she was abducted as light blue, when defendant's van in fact is silver.) Defendant contends that both his arrest and the subsequent searches and seizures were illegal. We affirm the conviction and sentence. 3d 1087] to questions relating to their views on capital punishment, so the parties should have been permitted to ask follow-up questions. Regardless of those circumstances the jury would still have heard evidence that defendant killed Lamp because she had witnessed the crimes he perpetrated on another victim, and that defendant had tortured four of his other victims. The problem in applying this rule is that it makes the issue turn on the prosecutor's good faith, and the record will rarely contain evidence bearing on that matter. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. Furthermore, the prosecutor's claim that a death verdict is compelled if aggravating considerations outweigh mitigating by the slightest of margins -- an ounce, or one-tenth of one percent -- is directly contrary to People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal. The court sustained the prosecutor's objection. 133], the Court of Appeal held that a plea bargain was invalid if it required the witness to testify to a particular version of the facts, and that testimony given pursuant to that bargain was tainted. 467, 755 P.2d 917]; People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal. Because defendant failed to object, the prosecution did not attempt to justify the search, with the result that the record on appeal is insufficient to resolve the issue of its validity. 2. 2d 1, 22.). FN 33. Defendant calls our attention to People v. Carmichael (1926) 198 Cal. Question three asked: "Do you have such a conscientious opinion or religious conviction regarding the death penalty that if you found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and you found the special circumstances alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?" Rptr. hell never hurt another & all that evil that was in him will be there to torture him for eternity plus judgement day will make his punishment greater. North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal. Webuse table 6 1 to find the saturation mixing ratio. Rptr. There is no evidence that any victim went voluntarily to the place of her death, and only then was restrained against her will. They saw Lucinda (Cindy) Schaefer, age 16, walking along the highway. [14b] Here certain prospective jurors gave insufficient or ambiguous answers [48 Cal. (Compare People v. Hoban (1985) 176 Cal. In Teale, Federal Bureau of Investigation officers arrested defendant in his car and thereupon seized, locked and stored the car until California authorities were able to examine it 10 days later. Thus, the trial court correctly upheld the van's seizure based upon People v. Teale, supra, 70 Cal. She turned onto a residential street. A later decision, People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. ", "When should the death penalty be imposed? If you notice a problem with the translation, please send a message to [emailprotected] and include a link to the page and details about the problem. Late in the evening on October 31, 1979, defendant and Norris picked up Shirley Ledford, age 16, who was hitchhiking home from 3d 1105] rape was not forcible went beyond the evidence. 3d 1072] admittance. The book, entitled "The Last Ride," contained a detailed account of the murder of Lucinda Schaefer by Norris and the author. 3d 1077] to determine the van's "evidentiary value" as is permitted by the Teale (supra, 70 Cal.2d 497) line of cases. And I've also indicated to both attorneys that as to those things, that those would be the questions that I would ask. After a 50-year gap in which we have found no reported cases, this court again addressed the subject in People v. Williams, supra, 29 Cal. 3d 539. 2d 536, 555 [58 Cal. "If you were to give a percentage to it, if you said 50.1 percent of the evidence pointed to aggravating circumstances and 49.9 pointed to mitigating circumstances, then you'd still have to impose a sentence of death. This relationship is not possible based on lifespan dates. Larry Bittakers celebrating his 71st birthday this year 30 years after a jury The prosecutor's comment, however, is clearly improper for another reason. cemeteries found in Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles County, California, USA will be saved to your photo volunteer list. (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal. 3d 731, we noted that in Warden v. Hayden, supra, 387 U.S. 294, the United States Supreme Court held that police may not indiscriminately seize items discovered during the course of a lawful police search. Arguably the mere mention of appeal is improper, since it rarely serves any constructive purpose and may lead the jury on its own to infer that their responsibility for penalty determination is diluted. We see no reasonable possibility that information about another violent rape -- this one committed many years earlier -- would have altered the verdict. 2d 216, 222 [13 Cal. 2022]), and lacked probable cause for its seizure. There was evidence that all of the victims except Schaefer voluntarily entered defendant's van. 3d 762, 773-774 [215 Cal. "What this means is, say to give a simple example, if we were to give actual weight in pounds and ounces to the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances, if the aggravating circumstances weighed 10 pounds and one ounce and the mitigating circumstances weighed 10 pounds, then you would be duty bound to impose a death penalty. 3. The trial court had previously refused to permit that information to go before the jury, and it is unlikely that an objection during closing argument would have changed that ruling. 3d 1, 71-75 [168 Cal. The questions concerning the validity of the witness-killing and torture-murder special circumstances are technical matters which do not affect the admissibility of evidence. As explained in the latter case, "[t]he argument addresses the minds of the jury to the deterrence of designated 'potential killers' rather than the penalty to be adjudged to the defendants. The judge then announced that, although he was satisfied with his rulings on challenges for cause, "I have decided to give you two additional peremptories in addition to the 26 based on an abundance of caution." fn. ), [26] Defendant now contends that since this evidence was excluded at the preliminary examination, the accompanying overt-act allegation should have been dismissed on a motion under section 995. Since we have determined that the tape was properly seized, and defendant failed to object to the playing of the tape, the issue does not warrant further discussion. (P. 3d 333, 360 [233 Cal. fn. (We express no opinion as to whether the evidence might also be admissible to prove identity under Evidence Code section 1101.). He then strangled Hall until she died and threw the body over an embankment into some bushes. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].). 12 After receiving no response from within the motel room, Officer Valento knocked two more times. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of California opinions delivered to your inbox! Rptr. 3d 1081]. 13 After defendant responded in the negative to Officer Valento's inquiry whether anyone else was present in defendant's room, the officer directed another officer to kick in the locked door so that the officers could enter the room and take defendant completely into their custody. Start with yourself and well build your family tree together The defense then filed a formal motion for copy and a continuance to permit testing of the copy; the court denied the motion. 10. This browser does not support getting your location. We therefore find no error in the ruling. 2d 497, and North v. Superior Court, supra, 8 Cal. Juror Andry, asked if she would automatically vote for life imprisonment, answered, "Yes, I guess so." But if he can [48 Cal. 5 In explanation, defendant said that the book was part fact, based on what he had been told by Norris, and part fiction. fn. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Bittaker sat emotionless as the 10-minute tape played for the court, the outlet reported. Meanwhile, several jurors started to cry. If the only problem was the prosecutor's misstatement of the evidence -- his assertion that Norris's 1976 conviction was for rape by threat, when the record was silent on the point -- the matter could have been redressed by timely admonition. (Photo of grave marker; courtesy of Steve Smith), Thank you for fulfilling this photo request. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, we find no reasonable probability [48 Cal. The district attorney objected. The time for obtaining copies of evidence and submitting them to expert examination is before trial, not during the prosecution's case. Quickly see who the memorial is for and when they lived and died and where they are buried. 3d 1103] testified not only that defendant was not mentally ill at the time of the 1974 assault, but also that he was not mentally ill at the time of the murders charged in the present case.
Jabari Walker Mother,
Articles S