Supreme Court of California

In a death penalty case on automatic appeal, the judgment against defendant is reversed as to a robbery charge and a robbery special circumstance is set aside, but the judgment as to guilt and penalty is otherwise affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the absence of a grand jury indictment; 2) jury selection; 3) use of material from defendant's first trial; 4) admission of evidence; 5) confrontation clause issues; 6) a request to enter an insanity plea; 7) jury instructions; 8) proof of corpus delicti; 9) sufficiency of the evidence; 10) the constitutionality of the witness-killing special circumstance; 11) prosecutorial misconduct; 12) permitting jurors to think about the case at home; 13) vindictive prosecution; 14) denial of a new jury for the penalty phase; 15) exclusion of mitigating and rebuttal evidence; 16) discharge of a juror; 17) denial of a motion to modify the death verdict; 18) discretion to strike special circumstances; 19) cruel and unusual punishment; and 20) ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/17/2006
• Published 08/17/2006

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Donald M. Thommen, Visalia, and Jeffrey J. Stuetz, Wheat Ridge, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias, Moona Nandi and Karl S. Mayer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.