shirley lynette ledford autopsy

As for general voir dire of course the code section allows the attorney a reasonable opportunity to make inquiry of the respective jurors for cause. 2d 503, 536-540, condemn such argument. But again I really don't think that it's going to be that close in this case. After the third knock, the bathroom window to the immediate right of the door was opened by the defendant, who asked, "Who is it?" Brand's interviews with Bittaker during his final years in prison are the basis of the special. (North, at p. Close this window, and upload the photo(s) again. (See People v. Baines (1981) 30 Cal. (P. 34 [48, 49] We find no reversible error. (P. (People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal. Norris testified for the prosecution pursuant to a plea bargain under which he pled guilty to five murders and received a sentence of forty-five years to life. FN 7. Juror Martin, asked whether she would automatically vote in favor of death, responded, "That's hard to say." He excused those jurors who raised their hand. We therefore find no error in the ruling. Not even a body for her parents to give a decent burial." Defendant argues that by offering the prosecutor a chance to respond to the motion, the court in effect found that defense counsel had made a prima [48 Cal. We find, however, insufficient basis for reversal of the verdict. Defendant characterizes the prosecutor's argument here as coming within the framework of Caldwell v. Mississippi, supra, 472 U.S. 320, but the frame does not fit. The trial court acted properly in denying this challenge for cause. 13. After the girls entered the van, Norris hit Lamp with a sap (a plastic bag filled with lead weights), then subdued and tied Gilliam. We upheld the court's refusal to allow defense counsel to question those jurors for the purpose of rehabilitation, citing Ketchel. 422.). And I think I would have a tendency to have a saturation point perhaps below what other people -- an anger point, perhaps, or something to that effect. (P. Defendant kidnapped and murdered five teenage girls, raped four of them, and tortured at least one. fn. Defendant set out to rape Gilliam. 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. [11] Defendant claims he was improperly deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to be present on seven occasions during trial. (Cf. Sorry! 3d 542 [146 Cal. 855, 659 P.2d 1144].). [28] Defendant claims that because the 1974 offense had almost no marks of similarity with the charged crimes, evidence showing the nature of that offense was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101. (People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal. This is a carousel with slides. 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. 18. 785].). 457, 545 P.2d 833]; People v. Delgado (1973) 32 Cal. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, breaking news, sweepstakes, and more! Defendant's question to Jackson did not suggest any relationship between the attempted rape in April and the charged crimes that would render the evidence admissible, and when the court sustained an objection defendant made no offer of proof. Defendant's motion to suppress the seized evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied by the trial court. Nothing has made me react like this before. FN 2. [48 Cal. 3d 1, 28.). The jury found intentional murder by means of torture as to all victims except Lamp; with respect to Lamp, it found as a special circumstance that she was killed to prevent her from testifying as a witness. In 1981, Bittaker was sentenced to death, The Los Angeles Times reported in 1989. Expressing his frustration at being unable to question the juror, counsel challenged for cause, but the court denied the challenge. Webuse table 6 1 to find the saturation mixing ratio. 902, 450 P.2d 278]; People v. Henry (1967) 65 Cal. [5] Defendant's contention that the trial court failed to rule on the voluntariness of his consent, and thus failed to adjudicate a fundamental issue, is meritless. Despite finding 20 multiple-murder special circumstances, the jury was aware at all times that there were 5, not 20, murders. The prosecutor properly emphasized such facts to show that defendant deserved the death penalty. The next day Norris dropped defendant at Norris's residence and left to drive the girls home in the van. Rptr. The Attorney General points to People v. Hendricks, supra, 44 Cal. Juror Porrazzo, asked whether she would automatically vote in favor of life imprisonment, replied, "Well, the death penalty, I believe in. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. Aside from being their final victim, Ledford was also instrumental in ensuring Bittaker and Norris were put behind bars for good. He did not call upon the prosecutor to explain his challenges, but to respond to the defense motion. Rptr. 532, 535 [93 P. 99]; People v. Diaz (1951) 105 Cal. Sergeant Farrand was stationed approximately five to six feet away from Officer Valento during the arrest. 3d 739, 768; People v. Linden, supra, 52 Cal. 70-71.) 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?" 3d 162 [133 Cal. Section 1101, subdivision (a), however, prohibits the use of prior specific conduct only "when offered to prove [defendant's] conduct on a specified occasion." In the most recent decision, People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal. According to Douglas, defendant said he pinched Gilliam's legs and breasts with a vise grip, finally tearing off part of the nipple, then thrust an ice pick through her breast and twisted it. 2d 690, 696-699 [234 P.2d 300].). fn. The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, bruises on the genitals, and bruises on one elbow. He showed Norris two pictures in which Hall appeared frightened, and told Norris that he took them after telling Hall that he was going to kill her, and challenging her to come up with as many reasons as she could why he should not kill her. 529.) Defendant presumably could have given the court or counsel any information he had at that time. 6 based upon an affidavit filed by a Sergeant Bynum of the Hermosa Beach police department. If you take somebody's life, willfully take somebody's life, that you give up your own." We may presume, however, that the trial court resolved the conflicting testimony in favor of the testimony of Sergeant Farrand that an announcement was made. ), [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. Defendant must show that the error affected his right to a fair and impartial jury. 3d 1090] fairly and impartially judge and evaluate such a situation?" It's not a question of whether you like the death penalty or you don't like it or you're in favor of it or you're opposed to it. Defendant admitted the assault on Jan Malin, and his description of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin. arnold edwin corll shirley lynette ledford autopsy. 3d 410 [153 Cal. We do not so interpret the judge's ruling. 27, Defendant raises 40 guilt phase issues. The prosecution did not introduce the book in its case-in-chief, but made use of it, over defense objection, in cross-examining defendant. The book itself was not put into evidence. Norris later expressed remorse for his crimes, but Lawrence Bittaker was wholly unrepentant; when the tape of Lynettes torture was played for the jury, he actually smiled. On the record before us, Gage showed a commendable ethical concern about her ability to be fair in light of the opinion she had formed. The court, however, failed to instruct the jury at the penalty phase that before it could consider these crimes as aggravating factors, they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crimes. This relationship is not possible based on lifespan dates. Relying on the descriptions by Norris and other witnesses, a police artist reconstructed some of the photographs. He argues that the testimony was improper under Evidence Code section 730 because defendant did not put his mental state in issue. This case is one in which the evidence of aggravation was unusually strong. Thus, the search of the van and the seizure of items therein were properly held to be lawful by the trial court. ", In Caldwell v. Mississippi, supra, 472 U.S. 320, the prosecutor argued to the jury that theirs was not the final decision as to life or death, but that the case would be reviewed by an appellate court. 3d 1, 71-75 [168 Cal. Try again later. 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. He saw defendant leave a grocery store with a package of meat hidden in his clothes. Defendant also claims other portions of the prosecutor's argument were misconduct: 1. 7 Thus, defendant does not allege insufficient probable cause; rather, he contends that the procedure and form used for the issuance of the warrant were illegal. 26 Her voir dire presents no unqualified statement that she actually felt that she could be fair and impartial in the penalty phase of this case. 3 When she did not die instantly, he turned her over and pushed the pick through the other ear, and stepped on it until the handle broke. Defendant then returned to the van. 172, 450 P.2d 564] and its progeny to uphold the seizure of the van as an instrumentality of the crime. 19.) Please enter your email and password to sign in. "Now that takes some of the burden off of you. 85.) Kuriki, however, also stated that she believed she had the ability to follow the court's instructions and base her decision solely on the evidence as it comes from the witness stand. This account already exists, but the email address still needs to be confirmed. That's true." And the mitigating circumstances aren't going to make that scale even come off the ground. He was eligible for parole in 2010, but he died in prison on February 24 of this year, age 72. The second portion of the tape contains Norris's voice, urging Ledford to scream, and more screaming by Ledford. While driving in Manhattan Beach they saw Andrea Hall, age 18, who was hitchhiking to visit her boyfriend in Wilmington. Defense counsel agreed, but again objected that vague answers to the court's questions did not really reveal the views of the jurors, and the court's ruling did not give attorneys latitude to explore the matter. 11 After Norris was arrested by the Hermosa Beach police, Sergeant Bynum directed the police dispatcher to request the Burbank police to arrest defendant on the warrant which Sergeant Bynum held. FN 25. The prosecutor's language did not envision an appropriateness decision during the weighing process, for it describes the weighing as a separate decision which precedes the penalty determination, and one, moreover, based on a type of arithmetic calculation incompatible with a moral assessment. A portion of an ice pick was lodged in Gilliam's skull. A few days later, however, he asked defendant if he could read and review it. 2d 72, with approval (18 Cal.3d at pp. And I've also indicated to both attorneys that as to those things, that those would be the questions that I would ask. Under these circumstances, it is most unlikely that the jury would have been led by the prosecutor's explanation of the decisionmaking process to refrain from considering whether defendant's conduct warranted the death penalty, and induced instead to engage in a dispassionate analysis of the statutory factors to confirm that the aggravating predominate by at least 50.1 to 49.9 percent. There is 1 volunteer for this cemetery. (People v. Harris, supra, 36 Cal. We explained in a footnote that Steger did not define all the elements of murder by torture, but was concerned only with establishing that the act of torture must be premeditated. When he returned, defendant was alone. The prosecutor's question concerning a letter to Shoopman. Thus while we advise against language in a plea bargain which purports to give the district attorney, and not the court, discretion to determine whether the witness testified truthfully, we find no reversible error. Norris in return agreed to help the sheriff to find the bodies of the victims and physical evidence relating to the murders, to testify at defendant's trial, and to plead guilty to five counts of murder without special circumstances, two counts of rape, and one of robbery. Neither permitted a court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers. 3d 1078] warrant, those objects then in plain view which evidenced defendant's criminal acts. 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. [33] Defendant invokes the rule that it is "improper to ask questions which clearly suggested the existence of facts which would have been harmful to defendant, in the absence of a good faith belief by the prosecutor that the questions would be answered in the affirmative, or with a belief on his part that the facts could be proved, and a purpose to prove them, if their existence should be denied." 2d 229, 241 [23 Cal. These conflicting answers present the same issue as arose with Juror Gage. The prosecutor then put on further evidence of defendant's 1974 assault on a store clerk. He was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death; however, due to multiple appeals, he ultimately died in prison in December 2019 at age 79. As Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the van. At the start of the second day, the court called counsel and McLaughlin into chambers and told her that "I am not authorizing your services." In People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal. They continued their discussion of rape, and explored various fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with adequate privacy. Family members linked to this person will appear here. medianet_height = "250"; The sought imposition of the death penalty thus rests upon the unproven and illegitimate assumption that it acts as a deterrent to the described 'potential killers'. But if he can [48 Cal. 3d 36, 67.) In that decision we offered a number of reasons for rejecting the claim that an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause was reversible per se; the most important, we said, was that "the error here did not result in a jury particularly apt to impose the death penalty, and there is no indication that the jury before which defendant was tried was anything other than fair and impartial." To view a photo in more detail or edit captions for photos you added, click the photo to open the photo viewer. Nye observed expressly that the trial judge had excused only those jurors whose answers made their disqualification unmistakably clear, and said there was no need for further examination of those particular jurors. [48 Cal. If you have questions, please contact [emailprotected]. 1, 609 P.2d 468].). 2447].) The prosecution may not comment upon a defendant's failure to call a witness if the defendant has a privilege to bar disclosure of that witness's testimony. The United States Supreme Court reversed the penalty, holding that "it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Failed to delete memorial. 354], quoted in People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal. Norris then drove away without defendant, who fled on foot. 3d 1093]. When defendant was tried in 1981, the court apparently overlooked both Wiley, supra, 18 Cal. The majority held that since the witness had not actually asserted that privilege, the prosecutor could comment on the defendant's failure to call the witness. Norris was arrested first, giving Bittaker just enough time to destroy evidence. Rptr. 329-330 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. 240], quoting McGautha v. California (1971) 402 U.S. 183, 208 [28 L. Ed. Oops, we were unable to send the email. It would obviously be improper for the jury to return a death verdict with respect to one murder to protect the death verdict it returned for a different murder, and the prosecutor should not have suggested that the jury do so. 275].) In discussing the murder of Cindy Schaefer, the prosecutor said: "And then her body is thrown over so that the coyotes and the maggots and the beetles can finish her off so that nobody will find her. Our decisions in People v. Love, (1961) 56 Cal. In this case, as in most, our inquiry begins by examining the prosecutor's penalty phase argument. Shoopman denied receiving such a letter, and the prosecutor did not mention the matter further. 3d 1079] record on appeal is insufficient for us to conclude these asserted grounds constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. [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. All of these arguments fail if Dr. Markman's testimony was proper rebuttal to the defense penalty evidence. The prosecutor said that defendant "would never be rehabilitated. In People v. Tubby (1949) 34 Cal. And I made that type of ruling, and I've made that clear to the attorneys. (Pp. 3d 1071] proceeding." 546.) 77, 655 P.2d 279]. [44] The prosecutor argued without objection that "Bittaker was the one with the violent past" and that "Norris had been sent to prison on a rape by threat, not forcible rape, but a rape by threat." Please contact Find a Grave at [emailprotected] if you need help resetting your password. 849, 729 P.2d 115], because it depicts the weighing process as one involving the application of an arithmetical formula involving the assignment of weights to each of the factors, followed by an addition of the entries in each column to determine the balance. The defense then filed a formal motion for copy and a continuance to permit testing of the copy; the court denied the motion. Try again later. On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. 281. Norris was required to testify truthfully. Malin screamed, and people started to come out of the houses nearby. (e) The method of weighing factors and determining penalty. People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal. Please reset your password. 12 After receiving no response from within the motel room, Officer Valento knocked two more times. 2d 393, 402-403, 104 S.Ct. fn. medianet_versionId = "3111299"; The two then switched places, with Norris turning on the tape recorder and then himself ordering Lynette to scream, while hitting her with a sledgehammer. But the defense had nevertheless opened up the issue of defendant's mental condition; the prosecution should have the right to present rebuttal evidence on that topic. 3d 301 [104 Cal. Defendant told Douglas that he tortured Ledford by pulling on her genitals and breasts with a vise grip. The misconduct, however, could have been cured by timely objection and admonition. FN 29. Rptr. 534, convinces us that the rule itself should be abandoned. Defendant took Hall into some bushes by the road while Norris drove the van, searching unsuccessfully for the intruder. 3d 255, 264 [221 Cal. The defense did not call Dr. Coburn as a witness. 2d 564, 91 S.Ct. Please ensure you have given Find a Grave permission to access your location in your browser settings. Defense counsel asked if "what you're telling us is that because of what you have read, you have preconceived notions which would be most difficult if not impossible to put out of your mind?" Defense counsel sought to impeach her by evidence that she had made false charges of sexual molestation against two other men. 2d 497 [75 Cal. Defendant raped her, then Norris a second time. It was not, however, permitted to ask questions relating to views on capital punishment. We note also that considerable time elapsed between the date of the motion and Douglas's actual testimony, during which defendant could have investigated Douglas. 640, 640 P.2d 776].). Finally, the jury found at least 14 valid special circumstances -- far more than is found in most death penalty cases. They left her body on a random nearby Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782], as a reference to a nonstatutory aggravating factor. Rptr. 2. The facts in North, supra, 8 Cal. Rptr. Although defense counsel failed to move for dismissal of this overt-act allegation, defendant asserts that this omission was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 3d 1089] fairly upon the matters to be submitted to him or her." 3d 1069] into the mountains, engaged in various sexual acts, and took pictures. 83, 758 P.2d 25], cert. And a chance to spread his tales of torture and violence and bloodshed to other adoring prisoners such as the Richard Shoopman type who will some day be paroled to prey on the young girls in our society? The defense contended that Norris, not defendant, was responsible for the murders. fn. 2d 287, 292, fn. One older case, People v. Freeman (1891) 92 Cal. Get an all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! Juror Thompson had studied psychology and, on voir dire, said, "I really feel that I would try to be an amateur psychologist, psychiatrist, if I was in this case, in due fairness." By failing to follow up on meaningless (Juror Martin) or ambiguous (Juror Porrazzo) answers, he placed counsel in an impossible position; counsel had reason to believe the jurors were disqualified, but could not prove it without further questions designed to elicit a clear and unambiguous response. The evidence was admissible. Even though defendant's original request, unlike his later motion, was not accompanied by a request for continuance, the trial court could reasonably fear that granting the request would delay proceedings. Upon accepting the offer of a lift home and entering the van, Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris, which she refused. Learn about how to make the most of a memorial. They saw, however, a number of items in plain view which, they realized, might be evidence of other crimes they were investigating. Rptr. App. 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. (People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal. But the further implication that Norris had no history of violent rape probably could not have been cured without informing the jury that Norris had such a history. The coat hanger was still wrapped around her neck. 3d 1102] and People v. Talamantez (1985) 169 Cal. After two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to just kill her. Rptr. He also called Dr. Tronkman, a psychiatrist, who testified that defendant may have committed the 1974 assault while in an altered state of consciousness. Their actions turned into a "search," and thus a warrant was necessary. But when a defendant conceals evidence the prosecutor can argue the inference that the evidence was unfavorable to defendant. Appellate counsel argues that with a better copy, an expert might be able to show some other origin for the background noise. (See People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal. For memorials with more than one photo, additional photos will appear here or on the photos tab. 317, 628 P.2d 869], which broadened the scope of voir dire to permit examination for peremptory challenge), a party was entitled to put questions which might expose a basis for a challenge for cause. Norris drove to a store, keeping in communication by radio. In fact defendant helped throughout the search, pointing out photographs in a box, and opening his combination safe for the officers. He said defendant showed him nude photographs of the victims, told him one was named "Cindy," and that she had been killed. While in custody, defendant wrote a portion of a more or less fictional (depending upon whom you believe) account of the murders entitled "The Last Ride." In response to a question whether he could put that opinion out of his mind and decide the case on the evidence, he replied, "I wish I could say yes, okay, but I really don't think so." Norris got out and pretended to be repairing it. Then, towards the middle the sounds are of Bittaker beating her about the chest with his fists and tormenting the screaming and pleading girl with vise grip pliers on her genitals, breasts and nipples. 534, 547), that standard should not apply if the potential for bias relates only to a particular doctrine of law." [4b] It is undisputed that Officer Valento technically complied with the knock requirement. Hein responded, "That's correct.". Roy Norris was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder, and sentenced to 45 years to life. Under these circumstances, we believe the trial court did not err in finding no prima facie showing of group bias. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. They drove [48 Cal. The conference at which the court made its ruling was unreported. 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. It dismissed five additional jurors, bringing its total to twenty-six, but did not utilize the two extra challenges given it by the judge. The trial court continued the hearing until the following Monday when defendant could be present. Defendant suggests that these provisions required him to testify that defendant participated in the murders, even if that testimony were untrue. Dr. Maloney, testifying for the defense at the penalty trial, said he had discussed his report with Dr. Coburn, a psychiatrist, and that Dr. Coburn agreed with its conclusions. Norris got out and stood guard while defendant raped Hall. ), As in People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. (Carmichael, p. ), FN 20. The prosecutor asked, "in fact, Mr. Bittaker, Mr. Norris was afraid of you, isn't that true?" In that case the witness had a privilege not to testify. 3d 21, 55 [188 Cal. 3d 826, 834 [164 Cal.Rptr. 3d 1072] admittance. 4. She was also hit with a sledgehammer and her genitals and rectum were viciously torn with pliers, which is how Bittaker and Norris earned the nickname of the Tool Box Killers. After holding Shirley Ledford in the van for nearly two hours, Norris ultimately killed Shirley by strangling her with a coat hanger. Create an account to follow your favorite communities and start taking part in conversations. 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. (a)(10)), and argues that the crimes Lamp witnessed -- the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Gilliam -- were not completed at the time he and Norris killed Lamp. Rptr. She asked Norris if the men intended to kill her, and asked for [48 Cal. 6. In Ketchel (which was tried before Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [20 L. Ed. fn. Upon rehearing, we approved a jury instruction to the same effect. (People v. [48 Cal. There is a problem with your email/password. Neither defendant nor Norris was sexually interested in Lamp. Because it was equivocal, the judge did not err in finding it insufficient to require her dismissal for cause. In Nye, supra, 71 Cal. One might infer lack of intent from the fact that the prosecutor did not introduce evidence to prove the content of the destroyed letter, but one can readily imagine that by the time he could offer rebuttal evidence the prosecutor might have concluded that such additional evidence was unnecessary. This instruction was legally correct. Since the prosecutor already had five challenges remaining, we doubt that the effect was signficant. Rather, we affirmed in each case because the majority concluded that the prosecutor's remarks did not have the effect of misleading the jury as to its responsibility to determine the appropriate penalty. 3d 392 [174 Cal. (Id., at p. 305, italics added.) Rptr. 3d 512 [220 Cal. In his room police discovered seven bottles of various acids, which Norris said defendant planned to test on his next victim. [35] The trial court instructed the jury that in determining the credibility of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions. Louie followed defendant outside and asked if defendant had forgotten to pay for anything. The two men had recorded themselves torturing Ledford with screwdrivers, raping her, and strangling her with a coat hanger. Defendant then killed Hall by thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain. (P. Failed to report flower. Dr. Markman [48 Cal. Instructions on the use of prior felony convictions to impeach. Rptr. Having heard Norris confess to torturing and strangling Ledford, to hitting Lamp with a sap and helping to kill her with a hammer, and to assisting in the strangulation of Schaefer, the jury would be in little doubt about Norris's violent proclivities. FN 17. Section 1531 provides in pertinent part: "The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or anything therein, to execute the [search] warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance. 2d 503, 538-539.) fn. Defendant had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, arising from an incident in 1974 in which he stabbed a store clerk who accused him of shoplifting. FN 18. She had been hitchhiking home from her job. 2d 381 [74 Cal. Christina Dralle, a 17-year-old girl staying at the motel, said defendant showed her photographs of Gilliam and four other girls, and said, "The girls I get won't talk any more." It found felony-murder special circumstances based on forcible oral copulation as to victims Hall and Ledford, and forcible sodomy as to Ledford. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. We have never required an objection to raise claims of error based upon Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320 [86 L. Ed. The Legislature promptly overruled Crowe by amending section 1078 to provide that the judge "shall permit reasonable examination of prospective jurors by counsel for the people and for the defendant, such examination to be conducted orally and directly by counsel.". Defendant turned on his tape recorder. medianet_width = "728"; As the Court of Appeal correctly found in People v. Case (1980) 105 Cal. 1770]) the judge asked the jurors if they had any belief "that would prevent you from voting for the death penalty simply because of the fact that it is the death penalty?" Lynette was abducted, assaulted and killed by two male subjects. FN 8. They drove to the mountains where he and Norris took the photographs and made a tape recording. The ruling of the court in thus limiting the appellant in his examination of the jurors was, in our opinion, the deprival of the appellant of a fundamental right, -- a right to be tried by an impartial jury. 17 We have held, however, that the Ledford tape was properly seized, and that defendant's failure to object bars him from attacking the police's listening to the tape. 168.) 2d 418 [67 Cal. When Schaefer walked by, he grabbed her and dragged her into the van. Although found in contempt of court, he refused to divulge their exact location, and a police search failed to find them. (Photo of grave marker; courtesy of Steve Smith), Thank you for fulfilling this photo request. A juror is not to be disqualified for cause simply because the issues are emotional. App. over 130). Officer Valento explained this to [48 Cal. The two men became friends, and frequently discussed their mutual interest in rape, and analyzed methods of abducting and raping women without getting caught. Defendant maintains that a single erroneous denial of a challenge for cause is prejudicial; the Attorney General argues that since defendant received two extra peremptory challenges, he must show that at least three challenges were improperly denied. A later decision, People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal. The answer appears equivocal: it could mean she would automatically vote for death if the evidence pointed toward guilt with special circumstances, or it could mean she would automatically vote for death if the evidence pointed toward death as the appropriate penalty (although under the latter interpretation the word "automatically" has little meaning). fn. At one point he asked her, what are you sniveling about?. Defendant's case is distinguishable from the cases upon which he relies (People v. Rios (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 351 [128 Cal. Any process which can yield a conclusion that aggravating considerations prevail by 50.1 percent to 49.9 percentage is clearly not the kind of qualitative moral assessment required by our decisions. live music greenwood lake, ny, university of st andrews medicine entry requirements, 22, seafood shanty philadelphia, stable diffusion website, how to get to dreamgrove from orgrimmar, baxter vs rm williams, cass county, nd most wanted, james preston kennedy bio, malia andelin wiki, wes 201 light blue round pill, how many 400x400 tiles in a square metre, new mexico vehicle impound laws, clear stadium crossbody bag, why is hesitation marks not on spotify,

Pete Newman Kanakuk Wife, Lake Erie Bass Tournaments 2022, Txdot Specifications 2021, Gp Express Cargo Bacolod Contact Number, Neurodiverse Counselling Vancouver, Operazione Ares Rosarno, Sunwest Park Annual Pass,