Category: 1991

People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 144; 812 P.2d 163 (1991)

People?v.?Sully?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1195?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?144;?812?P.2d?163 [No.?S004721. Jul?11,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?ANTHONY?JOHN?SULLY,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-14026,?Gerald?E.?Ragan,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Broussard,?Panelli,?Kennard,?Arabian?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment.) COUNSEL Courtney?Shevelson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Renee?L.?Berenson?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Morris?Beatus?and?Herbert?F.?Wilkinson,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. Defendant?appeals?from?his?capital?sentence?following?conviction?of?six?counts?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,???187;?all?statutory?references?are?to?this?code?unless?otherwise?stated)?with?a?special?circumstance?of?multiple?murder?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3)).?Finding?no?reversible?error,?we?affirm?the?conviction?and?sentence. Facts?and?Proceedings Summary Defendant?killed?five?women?and?one?man?in?bizarre?episodes?involving?prostitution?and?cocaine?use.?Although?he?denied?committing?any?of?the?murders,?extensive?circumstantial?and?physical?evidence,?as?well?as?accomplice?testimony,?supported?his?conviction?on?each?count.?At?the?penalty?phase,?the?prosecution?presented?evidence?of?defendant’s?threats?to?kill?his?estranged?wife?and?her?daughter.?Rejecting?defendant’s?testimony?(which?denied?all?charges),?the?jury?convicted?him?on?all?counts,?made?the?requested?multiple-murder?special-circumstance?finding,?and?fixed?the?penalty?at?death. The?Guilt?Phase Defendant?served?for?nearly?eight?years?as?a?police?officer?for?the?City?of?Millbrae,?where?he?was?trained?in?fingerprint?detection?and?other?law?enforcement?techniques.?On?leaving?police?service,?he?established?a?successful?electrical?contracting?business,?eventually?located?in?a?warehouse?in?Burlingame.?He?converted?the?front?of?the?warehouse?to?his?personal?residence.?Before?the?crimes?at?issue?here,?defendant?invested?several?thousand?dollars?as?a?coventurer?in?an?”escort?service”?and?regularly?used?prostitutes’?[53?Cal.3d?1211]?services.?He?freebased?cocaine?and?had?sex?with?prostitutes?at?the?warehouse,?subjecting?the?prostitutes?to?rape,?beatings,?and?other?forms?of?violence. Gloria?Fravel Defendant?met?Tina?Livingston?in?1982?when?she?was?a?partner?in?an?escort?service.?Gloria?Fravel?worked?as?a?prostitute?for?Tina?Livingston.?She?also?owed?Livingston?$500,?having?incurred?charges?in?that?amount?on?Livingston’s?credit?card.?Fravel?was?picked?up?by?Livingston?and?Angel?Burns,?another?prostitute,?in?San?Francisco?on?a?Friday?afternoon?and?transported?to?defendant’s?warehouse,?ostensibly?to?obtain?some?camping?equipment?from?defendant.?When?the?three?arrived?at?the?warehouse,?defendant?asked?Fravel?for?a?date.?When?she?declined,?he?slapped?her?across?the?face?and?directed?her?to?go?to?the?back?of?the?warehouse. Defendant?kept?Fravel?in?the?back?of?the?warehouse?during?the?weekend,?while?Burns?and?Livingston?remained?out?front.?He?gagged?and?handcuffed?her?and?suspended?her?from?the?ceiling.?He?assured?Livingston?that?Fravel?would?repay?the?amount?she?owed.?After?having?sex?with?Fravel,?defendant?allowed?her?to?dress,?telling?her?she?would?be?permitted?to?go?home.?He?later?revoked?the?permission?and?gagged?and?bound?Fravel,?placing?her?on?the?bed. Defendant?sat?on?a?chair?next?to?the?bed?and?fashioned?a?hangman’s?noose?from?a?piece?of?rope.?He?freebased?cocaine,?then?brutally?sodomized?Fravel.?At?some?point,?Fravel’s?gag?fell?off?and?she?began?screaming.?Livingston?and?Burns?attempted?unsuccessfully?to?replace?the?gag?and?to?silence?Fravel?by?tightening?the?hangman’s?noose?around?her?neck.?Defendant?intervened.?While?Burns?held?a?pillow?over?Fravel’s?head,?defendant?put?his?foot?against?the?back?of?her?neck,?and?jerked?hard?on?the?hangman’s?noose.?After?several?tugs,?Fravel’s?body?went?limp?and?her?bodily?fluids?spilled?out. With?the?assistance?of?Burns?and?Livingston,?defendant?encased?Fravel’s?body?in?plastic?and?moved?it?into?a?car.?Burns?and?defendant?drove?away?to?dispose?of?the?body;?Livingston?cleaned?up?the?warehouse.?When?Burns?and?defendant?returned?several?hours?later,?Burns?was?covered?with?blood.?Burns?reported?to?Livingston?that?she?had?continued?to?choke?Fravel,?who?was?not?yet?dead?when?her?body?was?removed?from?the?warehouse.?Defendant?added?that?he?had?pulled?the?van?to?the?side?of?the?road?and?hit?Fravel?with?a?hatchet.?He?said?that?she?”bled?all?over?everything.”?According?to?defendant,?he?and?Burns?then?dumped?Fravel’s?body?on?Skyline?Drive,?where?it?was?later?discovered.?[53?Cal.3d?1212] Post?mortem?examination?revealed?ligature?marks?on?Fravel’s?ankles?and?neck.?Her?mouth?was?open,?but?her?teeth?were?tightly?clenched.?She?also?suffered?numerous?irregularly?shaped?and?sized?penetrating?injuries,?including?one?below?the?right?ear?which?transsected?the?jugular?vein.?Fravel?died?of?severe?head?and?neck?injuries?due?to?combined?cuts?and?blunt?trauma. Defendant?later?read?to?Livingston?a?newspaper?clipping?about?the?discovery?of?Fravel’s?body.?The?story?related?that?a?butcher?had?found?the?body,?a?fact?defendant?found?humorously?appropriate. The?Golden?Gate?Park?Barrel?Murders:?Brenda?Oakden,?Michael?Thomas,?and?Phyllis?Melendrez Shortly?after?the?murder?of?Gloria?Fravel,?defendant?told?Livingston?he?wanted?to?take?a?completely?new?girl?(i.e.,?one?that?had?not?previously?had?professional?sex)?and?kill?her?before?anyone?else?”had”?her.?Livingston?later?called?defendant?and?told?him?about?Brenda?Oakden,?age?19,?a?roommate?of?a?receptionist?at?Livingston’s?escort?service.?Oakden?had?worked?for?the?service?on?one?occasion.?At?defendant’s?request,?Burns?escorted?a?nervous?Oakden?to?the?warehouse.?Defendant?later?told?Livingston?that?he?had?killed?Oakden?and?directed?Livingston?to?tell?Oakden’s?roommate?that?Oakden?had?left?to?”catch?a?bus.”?He?later?told?her?”[t]hat?the?only?difference?between?killing?someone?now?and?killing?someone?as?a?policeman”?was?that?the?police?had?permission?to?do?it. Defendant?confided?to?Michael?Shing,?another?escort?service?owner,?that?he?had?murdered?a?pimp?and?his?prostitute?and?stuffed?their?bodies?into?barrels.?He?told?Shing?that?if?anyone?ripped?him?off,?he?killed?them.?He?described?how?he?had?forced?his?victims?to?kneel?before?he?shot?them?and?how?profusely?they?bled.?He?sought?Shing’s?advice?as?to?how?to?dispose?of?the?bodies.?Shing?suggested?Searsville?Lake.?Defendant?later?told?Livingston?that?he?had?to?dispose?of?the?barrels?because?they?were?stinking?up?his?warehouse. The?bodies?of?Brenda?Oakden,?Michael?Thomas?and?Phyllis?Melendrez?were?found?in?barrels?in?Golden?Gate?Park.?All?three?died?of?gunshot?wounds?to?the?back?of?the?head.?Melendrez?had?been?struck?in?the?lip?before?she?was?killed?and?had?a?defensive?wound?on?her?hand. In?addition?to?his?admissions,?defendant?was?linked?to?the?three?murders?by?a?variety?of?physical?and?other?evidence.?The?barrels?in?which?the?bodies?were?found?had?been?stolen?from?a?storage?yard?located?three?structures?away?from?defendant’s?warehouse.?Defendant’s?fingerprints?were?found?in?two?places?on?the?barrels.?In?one?place,?the?prints?were?left?in?wet?concrete?[53?Cal.3d?1213]?apparently?mixed?and?poured?to?seal?the?barrel.?Angel?Burns’s?palm?print?was?also?found?on?one?barrel.?Defendant?gave?inconsistent?statements?about?the?barrels,?stating?when?arrested?that?he?had?never?touched?the?barrels,?but?later?testifying?that?he?had?seen?them?on?his?property?and?had?touched?the?wet?concrete?out?of?curiosity. Plastic?bags?resembling?those?around?Michael?Thomas’s?corpse?were?recovered?from?defendant’s?van;?the?recovered?bags?displayed?a?design?defect?identical?to?the?defect?in?the?bag?around?the?corpse.?Napkins?similar?in?color?and?red?wire?were?also?found?in?the?warehouse?and?vicinity?as?well?as?on?the?corpse.?Various?handguns?and?ballistics?textbooks?were?also?found?at?the?warehouse.?Defendant’s?removal?of?the?barrel?of?one?of?the?guns,?a?Smith?&?Wesson?revolver,?made?it?impossible?to?identify?it?as?a?murder?weapon.?Defendant’s?explanation?for?removing?the?barrel-that?he?wanted?to?install?a?longer?one?for?target?shooting-was?contradicted?by?of?one?of?his?employees,?who?testified?that?defendant?had?declined?an?invitation?to?go?target?shooting?because,?according?to?defendant,?it?did?not?interest?him. Barbara?Searcy Barbara?Searcy?went?to?defendant’s?warehouse?with?Raleigh?Hall,?her?landlord,?to?collect?money?defendant?owed?her.?Searcy?later?told?a?friend?that?she?was?waiting?to?hear?back?from?a?man?she?had?seen?several?times?and?was?planning?to?see?in?Burlingame.?At?about?the?same?time,?defendant?left?a?message?on?Searcy’s?answering?machine?stating?he?had?”fifty”?for?her?and?wanted?a?”date.”?Defendant?testified?that?he?had?sex?with?Searcy?on?several?occasions?and?used?cocaine?with?her.?Although?he?did?not?consider?these?to?be?”dates”?in?the?”professional”?sense,?he?admitted?giving?her?money?when?she?needed?it. Defendant?later?gave?Livingston?a?satchel?containing?Searcy’s?clothing?and?personal?items?and?told?her?that?he?badly?wanted?to?recover?a?recording?on?Searcy’s?answering?machine.?He?later?indicated?that?Livingston?would?be?able?to?go?to?Searcy’s?apartment,?recover?the?recording,?and?steal?the?rest?of?her?property.?Livingston?attempted?the?theft?in?the?company?of?another?man?but?was?frightened?away.?She?returned?to?the?warehouse?empty-handed. When?Livingston?returned?to?the?warehouse,?defendant?showed?her?Searcy’s?body,?wrapped?in?opaque?plastic?sheeting,?in?a?green?hamper?outside?the?warehouse.?He?explained?that?he?had?killed?Searcy?for?”personal?reasons.”?They?loaded?her?body?into?defendant’s?pickup?truck.?Defendant?said?he?was?going?to?drag?the?body?so?it?would?be?beyond?recognition.?While?[53?Cal.3d?1214]?attempting?to?drag?the?body?behind?the?truck,?defendant?and?Livingston?unexpectedly?encountered?a?witness?and?sped?away,?leaving?the?body. Searcy’s?body?was?discovered?the?next?day.?Defendant’s?right?footprint?was?found?on?a?green?trash?bag?stained?with?Searcy’s?blood?and?located?at?the?discovery?point.?Searcy?died?of?a?gunshot?wound?to?the?back?of?the?head.?Deep?scraping,?consistent?with?her?body?being?dragged,?was?inflicted?after?death.?Searcy?had?been?bound.?White?cotton?rope?was?found?along?the?road?near?the?body?and?around?Searcy’s?wrist.?Similar?rope?was?recovered?from?defendant’s?van.?Yellow?ski?rope?was?around?Searcy’s?ankles.?During?a?search?of?the?warehouse,?police?seized?yellow?ski?rope?containing?a?microscopic?defect?identical?to?a?defect?in?the?rope?binding?Searcy. Following?his?arrest?for?Searcy’s?murder,?defendant?telephoned?Livingston?and?asked?her?to?contact?Michael?Francis,?a?juvenile,?to?see?if?he?would?”take?the?fall”?for?the?crime?in?exchange?for?$10,000.?He?later?offered?an?additional?$10,000?if?Francis?would?do?the?same?for?the?Kathryn?Barrett?murder?(see?discussion,?post),?and?predicted?Francis?would?serve?only?a?year?or?two?in?jail.?Defendant?was?overheard?by?police?asking?Francis?what?he?thought?of?the?”deal”?and?telling?Francis?he?would?have?an?excellent?chance?for?diminished?capacity. Kathryn?Barrett Kathryn?Barrett,?a?drug?dealer,?offered?to?sell?defendant?six?ounces?of?cocaine.?Defendant’s?friend,?Michael?Francis,?suggested?that?they?steal?the?cocaine.?Defendant?agreed.?At?defendant’s?request,?Livingston?drove?Barrett?to?defendant’s?warehouse?and?went?to?a?local?bar?to?wait.?Defendant?called?Livingston?two?hours?later?and?told?her?she?need?not?pick?up?Barrett. When?Livingston?returned?to?the?warehouse,?she?observed?Francis?stabbing?Barrett?in?the?chest.?When?Livingston?started?to?leave,?defendant?followed?and?intercepted?her,?telling?her?Barrett?would?not?be?recognized?even?if?someone?found?her. Still?alive,?Barrett?continued?to?moan.?Disgusted?with?Francis’s?inability?to?kill?Barrett,?defendant?returned?to?their?location?in?the?warehouse.?Francis?later?emerged?alone,?looking?ill.?He?told?Livingston?that?defendant?had?hit?Barrett?in?the?mouth?with?a?sledgehammer,?stating?he?could?still?hear?her?bones?cracking. Barrett’s?body?was?found?nude,?wrapped?in?plastic?sheeting,?on?a?street?in?South?San?Francisco.?On?post?mortem?examination,?her?death?was?attributed?to?swelling?around?the?brain,?loss?of?blood?resulting?from?knife?wounds,?[53?Cal.3d?1215]?and?trauma?inflicted?with?considerable?force?using?a?blunt?instrument.?Defendant’s?footprint?was?found?on?the?plastic?sheeting?surrounding?her?body.?A?Benson?and?Hedges?cigarette?butt?found?on?Barrett’s?forearm?bore?a?batch?number?identical?to?cigarettes?in?a?pack?found?in?the?warehouse.?Other?physical?evidence-metal?shavings?and?the?plastic?bag-also?linked?Barrett’s?murder?to?the?warehouse. Defendant?testified?on?his?own?behalf?at?the?guilt?phase,?denying?that?he?committed?any?of?the?murders?and?attempting?to?place?the?blame?on?his?companions. The?Penalty?Phase Defendant?was?married?to?his?second?wife?for?a?little?more?than?a?year.?She?had?a?daughter?by?a?previous?marriage.?When?they?decided?to?divorce,?the?wife?and?daughter?moved?out?of?defendant’s?house.?The?morning?they?left,?defendant?was?up?early.?The?child?and?her?grandmother?went?to?the?backyard?where?the?child’s?pet?ducks?were?kept.?At?the?time,?several?ducklings?had?just?hatched.?The?child?and?grandmother?were?horrified?to?discover?the?baby?ducklings?torn?apart,?their?heads?ripped?off. During?one?of?a?series?of?harassing?phone?calls?to?his?estranged?wife?after?the?incident?(the?call?was?monitored?by?an?acquaintance?of?the?wife?who?testified?to?defendant’s?statements),?defendant?said?he?was?going?to?cut?her?daughter’s?heart?out?as?he?had?done?with?the?ducks.?He?then?described?how?he?had?twisted?the?necks?off?the?ducks?and?took?their?hearts?out.?He?also?made?other?threats?of?violence,?including?death,?directed?toward?his?wife,?her?daughter,?and?her?parents. Defendant?was?portrayed?by?various?defense?witnesses?as?a?good?electrician?and?employer?who?had?much?concern?for?children?and?animals.?One?witness?speculated?that?the?ducks?had?been?killed?by?raccoons.?The?defense?also?called?an?assistant?district?attorney?to?testify?that?the?prosecution?was?seeking?life?imprisonment?without?possibility?of?parole?in?the?case?of?Angel?Burns,?defendant’s?accomplice.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?explained?that?the?penalty?decision?in?Burns’s?case?had?been?based?on?three?factors:?(1)?Burns?was?directly?involved?only?in?the?Fravel?murder;?(2)?she?was?only?21;?and?(3)?she?was?dominated?and?controlled?by?defendant,?who?was?the?main?actor?in?each?case. Guilt?Phase?Issues The?Plea?Bargain?Agreement?With?Tina?Livingston [1a]?Defendant?argues?the?trial?court?committed?reversible?error?in?violation?of?the?rule?of?People?v.?Medina?(1974)?41?Cal.App.3d?438,?455-456?[53?Cal.3d?1216]?[116?Cal.Rptr.?133],?in?receiving?the?accomplice?testimony?of?Tina?Livingston,?with?whom?the?prosecution?had?entered?into?a?plea?agreement.?Under?the?terms?of?that?agreement,?Livingston?was?permitted?to?plead?guilty?as?an?accessory?to?the?Kathryn?Barrett?murder?(???32,?187)?and?to?admit?a?1976?manslaughter?conviction.?She?was?convicted?based?on?her?plea?and?received?a?three-year?sentence. The?basic?condition?of?the?plea,?repeated?several?times?in?the?written?plea?agreement,?was?that?Livingston?provide?”truthful?and?complete”?statements?and?testify?”truthfully?and?completely?in?all?criminal?proceedings.”?She?was?also?required?to?submit?to?a?polygraph?examination?and?to?answer?truthfully?the?questions?put?to?her?during?the?examination.?Finally,?in?a?separate?condition?that?defendant?now?assails,?she?was?required?to?pass?a?polygraph?examination?stating?”that?she?had?no?physical?involvement?in?or?encouragement?of?the?deaths?of?Gloria?Jean?Fravel,?Phyllis?Melendrez?aka?Chris?Thomas,?Michael?K.?Thomas,?Brenda?Oakden?aka?Brenda?Rule,?and?Barbara?Lee?Searcy.” Defendant?argues?that?the?plea?condition?requiring?Livingston?to?pass?a?polygraph?examination?with?respect?to?her?noninvolvement?in?the?murders?effectively?compelled?her?to?deny?in?her?testimony?that?she?was?the?perpetrator?or?an?accomplice?in?any?of?the?murders?in?violation?of?Medina.?We?reject?the?argument?for?two?independent?reasons. [2]?First,?having?failed?to?advance?the?argument?below?by?way?of?pretrial?motion,?objection?to?Livingston’s?testimony,?or?other?appropriate?means,?defendant?has?waived?the?claim.?(See?Evid.?Code,???353;?People?v.?Hamilton?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?123,?141-?142?[249?Cal.Rptr.?320,?756?P.2d?1348];?People?v.?Poggi?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?306,?331?[246?Cal.Rptr.?886,?753?P.2d?1082];?People?v.?Burns?(1987)?196?Cal.App.3d?1440,?1453?[242?Cal.Rptr.?573].) [1b]?Second,?even?assuming?defendant?had?presented?the?argument?below,?he?fails?to?show?that?the?plea?condition?was?impermissibly?coercive.?[3]?As?we?observed?in?People?v.?Allen?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?1222,?1251-1252?[232?Cal.Rptr.?849,?729?P.2d?115]:?”?'[A]?defendant?is?denied?a?fair?trial?if?the?prosecution’s?case?depends?substantially?on?accomplice?testimony?and?the?accomplice?witness?is?placed,?either?by?the?prosecution?or?by?the?court,?under?a?strong?compulsion?to?testify?in?a?particular?fashion.’?…?Thus,?when?the?accomplice?is?granted?immunity?subject?to?the?condition?that?his?testimony?substantially?conform?to?an?earlier?statement?given?to?police?…?or?that?his?testimony?result?in?defendant’s?conviction?…?the?accomplice’s?testimony?is?’tainted?beyond?redemption’?and?its?admission?denies?defendant?a?fair?trial.?On?the?other?hand,?although?there?is?a?certain?degree?of?compulsion?inherent?in?any?plea?agreement?or?grant?of?immunity,?it?is?clear?[53?Cal.3d?1217]?that?an?agreement?requiring?only?that?the?witness?testify?fully?and?truthfully?is?valid.”?(Italics?added.) [1c]?The?polygraph?condition?did?not?dictate?Livingston’s?testimony.?On?its?face,?it?merely?required?her?to?show?in?a?polygraph?examination?that?she?was?not?involved?in?the?murders.?She?was?not?committed?to?a?script.?She?remained?free?to?testify?as?she?desired,?without?having?to?subscribe?to?any?particular?version?of?events.?For?example,?she?remained?free?to?testify,?without?violating?the?condition,?that?defendant?did?not?commit?the?murders?or?that?someone?else,?including?herself,?was?responsible.?As?such,?the?condition?itself?did?not?compel?Livingston?to?testify?in?any?particular?manner,?any?more?than,?for?example,?the?fact?that?she?had?given?previous?statements?to?the?effect?that?defendant,?and?not?she,?had?killed?the?victims. [4]?As?we?explained?in?People?v.?Fields?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?329,?361?[197?Cal.Rptr.?803,?673?P.2d?680]:?”We?recognize?that?a?witness?…?is?under?some?compulsion?to?testify?in?accord?with?statements?given?to?the?police?or?the?prosecution.?The?district?attorney?in?the?present?case?obviously?believed?that?[the?witness’s]?last?statement?was?a?truthful?account,?and?if?she?deviated?materially?from?it?he?might?take?the?position?that?she?had?breached?the?bargain,?and?could?be?prosecuted?as?a?principal?to?murder.?But?despite?this?element?of?compulsion,?it?is?clear,?and?the?cases?so?hold?…?that?an?agreement?which?requires?only?that?the?witness?testify?fully?and?truthfully?is?valid,?and?indeed?such?a?requirement?would?seem?necessary?to?prevent?the?witness?from?sabotaging?the?bargain.?We?believe?the?requirements?of?due?process,?as?explained?in?Medina,?are?met?if?the?agreement?thus?permits?the?witness?to?testify?freely?at?trial?and?to?respond?to?any?claim?that?he?breached?the?agreement?by?showing?that?the?testimony?he?gave?was?a?full?and?truthful?account.”?(Citation?omitted.) […]

Read More →

Carpenters So. Cal. Admin. Corp. v. El Capitan Development Co. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1041 , 282 Cal.Rptr. 277; 811 P.2d 296 (1991)

Carpenters So. Cal. Admin. Corp. v. El Capitan Development Co. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1041 , 282 Cal.Rptr. 277; 811 P.2d 296 [No. S000772. Jun 20, 1991.] CARPENTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EL CAPITAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. (Superior Court of Kern County, No. 185215, Henry E. Bianchi, Judge.) (Opinion by […]

Read More →
← Newer Entries
Older Entries →