People?v.?Webster?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?411?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?31;?814?P.2d?1273 [No.?S004528.?Crim.?No.?23128. Aug?30,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?LARRY?JUNIOR?WEBSTER,?Defendant?and?Appellant. [No.?S007757. Aug?30,?1991.] In?re?LARRY?JUNIOR?WEBSTER?on?Habeas?Corpus. (Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?62613,?Sheldon?H.?Grossfeld,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?[54?Cal.3d?412]?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli?and?Arabian,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk,?Broussard?and?Kennard,?JJ.) COUNSEL Joseph?D.?Allen,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?Allen?&?Allen?and?David?K.?Allen?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White?and?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?[54?Cal.3d?423]?Overoye,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Jane?N.?Kirkland,?Ward?A.?Campbell?and?Edmund?D.?McMurray,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION BAXTER,?J. Defendant?Larry?Junior?Webster?and?three?other?men?were?jointly?tried?on?charges?arising?from?the?death?of?William?Burke.?A?jury?convicted?defendant?of?first?degree?murder?with?personal?use?of?a?deadly?and?dangerous?weapon?(Pen.?Code,????187,?189,?12022,?subd.?(b)),fn.?1?robbery?(??211),?conspiracy?to?commit?first?degree?murder?and?robbery?(??182,?former?subd.?1?[now?subd.?(a)(1)]),?and?grand?theft?of?an?automobile?(former???487,?subd.?3?[see?now???487h]).?Under?the?1978?death?penalty?law,?the?jury?found?as?special?circumstances?of?the?murder?that?defendant?intentionally?committed?it?while?lying?in?wait?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(15))?and?while?engaged?in?the?commission?or?attempted?commission?of?a?robbery?(id.,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?After?a?penalty?trial,?the?jury?fixed?defendant’s?punishment?at?death.?His?motion?for?modification?of?the?death?verdict?(??190.4,?subd.?(e))?was?denied.?Defendant’s?appeal?is?automatic. We?find?no?prejudicial?error?affecting?either?the?guilt?or?penalty?judgments.?We?will?therefore?affirm?them?in?full. Defendant?has?filed?a?separate?petition?for?habeas?corpus?alleging?(1)?that?his?trial?counsel?rendered?ineffective?assistance?in?various?respects?and?(2)?that?newly?discovered?evidence?warrants?guilt?and?penalty?retrials.?We?conclude?that?the?petition?fails?to?state?a?prima?facie?case?for?relief.?We?will?therefore?deny?the?petition. Guilt?Trial Prosecution?evidence. The?principal?prosecution?witnesses?were?Bruce?Smith?and?Michelle?Cram.?As?the?jury?knew,?Smith?had?already?pled?guilty?to?second?degree?murder?in?connection?with?the?homicide,?and?Cram?had?been?granted?immunity?in?return?for?her?testimony. Smith?and?Cram?provided?the?following?account,?differing?only?in?minor?details:?In?late?August?1981,?defendant,?Joseph?Madrigal,?Carl?Williams,?Robert?Coville,?Smith,?and?the?17-year-old?Cram?were?living?at?a?riverbank?encampment?in?Sacramento.?Defendant?was?the?group?leader.?On?the?night?of?August?29,?Smith,?Madrigal,?and?Coville?robbed?a?nearby?convenience?store.?[54?Cal.3d?424]?Quick?response?by?the?police?forced?the?trio?to?hide?for?several?hours?before?returning?to?camp. The?next?day,?August?30,?defendant?and?Williams?made?one?of?several?trips?to?buy?beer,?which?the?camp?residents?were?consuming?at?a?steady?pace.?When?the?men?returned?in?early?afternoon,?defendant?said?they?had?met?two?”outlaws”?(“street?persons”?or?”survivors”)?at?the?Shell?station?near?the?convenience?store.?Defendant?reported?there?was?still?intense?police?activity?in?the?area?because?of?the?robbery,?and?he?suggested?the?group?needed?to?leave?town.?Defendant?said?he?had?arranged?to?use?the?”outlaws’?”?car?for?joint?drug?purchases?or?robberies?that?evening.?The?opportunity?arose,?he?suggested,?to?lure?one?of?the?”outlaws”?back?to?the?camp,?kill?him,?and?steal?the?car. Madrigal,?Coville,?and?Williams?expressed?enthusiasm?for?the?plan.?According?to?Cram,?defendant?said?he?personally?would?kill?and?dismember?the?victim;?according?to?Smith,?Coville?said?he?”hadn’t?killed?somebody?in?quite?a?while”?and?would?”take?care?of?it.”?When?Cram?expressed?skepticism?about?defendant’s?boasts,?he?insisted?he?was?serious.?Defendant?said?this?would?be?Cram’s?first?criminal?lesson?and?would?help?her?become?more?independent?from?Williams,?with?whom?she?was?living. It?was?decided?that?because?the?”outlaws”?knew?Williams,?he?would?walk?back?to?the?Shell?station?with?defendant?to?meet?them.?Madrigal?would?go?along.?Once?the?three?returned?to?camp?with?the?intended?victim,?either?defendant?(according?to?Cram)?or?Coville?(according?to?Smith)?would?kill?him.?Defendant?showed?Smith?where?to?dig?a?grave?and?told?Cram?to?clean?up?the?campsite?and?pack?in?preparation?for?the?group’s?departure.?Defendant,?Williams,?and?Madrigal?then?left?for?a?7:30?p.m.?meeting?with?the?”outlaws.”?Defendant?had?drunk?beer?all?day?and?may?have?taken?amphetamines.?As?usual,?defendant?was?wearing?glasses;?Williams?wore?a?cowboy?hat. While?the?three?men?were?gone,?Smith?and?Cram?worked?at?their?assignments;?Coville?sat?and?drank?beer.?After?half?an?hour’s?absence,?defendant?called?out?from?the?top?of?a?levee?that?his?group?had?returned.?Four?men?walked?single?file?down?the?trail?to?the?camp.?Williams?was?in?the?lead,?followed?in?order?by?Madrigal,?victim?Burke,?and?defendant.?When?the?four?were?about?halfway?down?the?trail,?defendant?suddenly?grabbed?Burke?and?pulled?a?knife.?According?to?Smith,?defendant?moved?around?to?the?front?of?Burke?and?stabbed?him;?Cram?saw?defendant?reach?from?behind?to?stab?Burke?in?the?chest.?Burke?protested,?and?a?struggle?ensued.?Madrigal?turned?back?to?assist?defendant.?Burke?began?to?make?gurgling?sounds.?[54?Cal.3d?425] Cram?became?hysterical,?so?defendant?and?Williams?told?Smith?to?take?her?to?”Fag?Beach”?and?wait.fn.?2?Ten?minutes?later,?defendant,?Madrigal,?Williams,?and?Coville?arrived?at?the?”Fag?Beach”?parking?lot?with?the?group’s?belongings.?Defendant?gave?Coville?a?car?key,?which?Coville?used?to?unlock?the?trunk?of?a?car?parked?in?the?lot.?The?group?loaded?their?possessions?in?the?car,?proceeded?to?Interstate?5,?and?drove?all?night?toward?Southern?California.?Defendant?indicated?that?they?should?eventually?turn?east,?toward?Missouri. As?they?rode,?Madrigal?explained?to?Smith?that?”the?man?had?died?hard.”?Madrigal?said?Burke?had?managed?to?grab?defendant’s?knife?and?inflict?a?thigh?wound?on?defendant?before?Madrigal?joined?in?to?help?defendant?”finish?the?job?and?get?his?knife?back.”?Madrigal?indicated?that?he?himself?had?been?slashed?across?the?stomach?by?Burke?during?the?struggle.?Smith?said?that,?at?one?point,?he?saw?defendant’s?and?Madrigal’s?knives?in?the?car. About?3:30?p.m.?the?next?day,?as?defendant?was?driving,?an?officer?of?the?California?Highway?Patrol?(CHP)?stopped?the?group’s?car?for?speeding?on?Interstate?15?near?Barstow.?Investigation?stemming?from?the?traffic?stop?eventually?led?to?the?arrest?of?all?six?passengers,?and?to?statements?by?Smith?and?Cram?concerning?the?Burke?homicide.?(See?discussion,?post.)?On?September?8,?Detective?Burchett?of?the?Sacramento?Police?Department?took?an?in-custody?statement?from?Cram?which?essentially?conformed?to?her?trial?testimony. Guided?by?Smith’s?directions,?the?police?found?Burke’s?body?in?its?shallow?riverbank?grave?on?the?morning?of?September?3.?Burke’s?throat?had?been?cut,?and?there?were?24?other?stab?wounds,?8?in?the?rear?of?the?body.?The?wounds?could?have?been?inflicted?by?more?than?one?knife?and?more?than?one?person.?Burke’s?pants?pocket?was?turned?out,?but?his?wallet?had?not?been?taken. The?car?in?which?the?group?was?arrested?was?registered?to?Ronnie?Glover.?Glover?testified?that?on?the?evening?of?August?30,?he?loaned?the?car?to?his?cousin?Burke,?with?whom?he?was?travelling.?Burke?then?left?the?Shell?station?in?the?company?of?three?men?meeting?the?descriptions?of?defendant?(glasses),?Madrigal,?and?Williams?(cowboy?hat).?Glover?never?saw?Burke?or?the?car?again. When?examined?at?the?time?of?booking,?Madrigal?and?defendant?both?had?fresh?injuries.?Defendant’s?wound?was?on?the?knee.?A?bloodstained?knife?was?found?in?the?car?taken?from?Glover?and?Burke.?[54?Cal.3d?426] Defense?evidence. Defendant?testified?in?his?own?behalf.?He?denied?any?plan?to?kill?the?victim?and?steal?his?car.?The?camp?residents?had?engaged?in?a?drunken?discussion?about?killing?people,?but?defendant?insisted?he?merely?taunted?the?others?to?show?they?were?not?as?”tough”?as?they?maintained.?Defendant?did?tell?the?”sniveling”?Cram?that?”[t]his?will?be?your?first?day?of?school,”?but?the?remark?was?intended?only?to?”shut?her?up.”?He?did?not?order?anyone?to?dig?a?grave?or?break?camp?before?he?went?to?meet?Glover?and?Burke. Later,?according?to?defendant,?Burke?handed?him?the?car?keys?when?they?arrived?at?the?”Fag?Beach”?parking?lot.?Defendant?was?”fairly?loaded”?but?not?staggering?drunk.?As?the?four?men?walked?from?the?car?toward?the?camp,?he?and?Burke?were?arguing?over?how?to?split?the?proceeds?of?drug?sales?and?robberies?planned?for?later?in?the?evening.?Burke?wanted?a?larger?share?because?he?had?furnished?the?car.?Burke?suddenly?pulled?a?knife?and?slashed?defendant?on?the?leg.?Defendant?managed?to?get?control?of?Burke’s?weapon?and?defended?himself.?Burke?kept?”charging”?at?defendant?and?Madrigal,?forcing?them?to?continue?stabbing?him.?Burke?could?have?left?had?he?wished?to?do?so. Only?after?Burke’s?death,?defendant?said,?did?the?group?decide?to?take?the?car?and?flee.?Attempts?to?dig?a?makeshift?grave?were?unsuccessful,?so?they?dragged?Burke’s?body?under?a?bush.?They?also?threw?knives?belonging?to?defendant,?Madrigal,?Burke,?and?Smith?into?the?river.?Defendant?denied?going?through?Burke’s?pockets.?He?could?not?name?the?owner?of?the?knife?found?in?the?car?but?said?it?was?not?Madrigal’s. William?Gaida,?a?Sacramento?detective,?testified?about?a?statement?taken?from?Cram?on?September?2,?which?differed?in?minor?respects?from?Cram’s?trial?testimony.?Larry?Moser?testified?that?several?years?earlier,?he?was?seriously?injured?in?a?barroom?fight?initiated?by?Burke. Coville?testified?in?his?own?defense.?He?denied?participating?in?or?overhearing?a?plan?to?kill?Burke.?Coville?said?he?was?drunk?when?defendant,?Madrigal,?and?Williams?returned?to?camp?with?Burke.?Coville?insisted?he?did?not?see?the?killing?of?Burke,?but?defendant?later?told?him?”this?guy?[had]?jumped?on?[defendant]?and?stuck?him?with?a?knife”?and?defendant?thought?the?”guy”?was?dead?after?a?struggle.?Coville?recited?in?some?detail?how?the?group?reached?Burke’s?car?and?left?town. A?psychiatrist,?Dr.?Globus,?testified?that?Coville?was?an?alcoholic?with?brain?damage?and?a?history?of?”amnestic?episodes.”?Coville?told?Dr.?Globus?he?remembered?little?of?the?incident?besides?drinking?and?”partying.”?Dr.?[54?Cal.3d?427]?Globus?believed?Coville?and?concluded?he?could?not?have?formed?the?mental?states?necessary?for?malice,?premeditation,?lying?in?wait,?or?intent?to?kill. Neither?Williams?nor?Madrigal?testified.?Madrigal’s?long?history?of?behavioral?and?psychiatric?problems?and?drug?and?alcohol?abuse?was?detailed.?Dr.?Mungas,?a?psychologist,?testified?that?Madrigal?had?hazy?memories?of?a?fight?but?remembered?no?details.?Dr.?Mertz,?a?psychiatrist,?testified?that?Williams?told?her?he?had?been?consuming?beer?and?amphetamines?continuously?by?the?evening?of?August?30;?he?remembered?going?to?the?Shell?station?and?returning?with?Burke;?he?heard?a?scuffle?behind?him?and?took?Cram?away.?Dr.?Mertz?concluded?that?because?of?drug?and?alcohol?intoxication,?Williams?had?diminished?capacity?to?conspire,?harbor?malice,?premeditate,?or?intend?to?kill.fn.?3 Penalty?Trial Prosecution?evidence. The?People?presented?evidence?that?in?the?early?morning?of?August?31,?1981,?the?day?after?the?Burke?homicide,?defendant,?Madrigal,?Smith,?and?Williams?robbed?a?convenience?store?in?Pacoima.?The?prosecution?presented?a?videotape?of?the?robbery,?along?with?the?testimony?of?Smith?and?the?store?clerk,?Eli?Yitshaky.?The?evidence?indicated?that?defendant?was?the?ringleader,?that?he?and?Madrigal?brandished?knives,?and?that?Yitshaky?was?knocked?unconscious?after?complying?with?the?robbers’?order?to?lie?down?on?the?floor.?The?robbers?took?food,?money?from?the?cash?register,?and?Yitshaky’s?personal?property.?Defendant,?who?followed?Smith?from?the?store,?told?Smith?he?had?”punched?[Yitshaky]?out”?and?had?taken?his?wallet?and?watch. The?prosecution?introduced?evidence?that?on?October?31,?1981,?defendant?and?Madrigal?were?convicted?of?armed?robbery?in?the?Pacoima?case.?Two?Washington?State?felony?convictions?against?defendant?were?also?presented:?a?1977?conviction?for?second?degree?assault,?and?a?1974?conviction?for?second?degree?burglary. Defense?evidence. Several?members?of?defendant’s?family?testified?in?his?behalf.?According?to?his?two?sisters,?the?family?was?poor.?Their?father?was?unemployed?and?a?[54?Cal.3d?428]?cruel?alcoholic?who?often?beat?the?children?and?their?mother.?Still,?defendant?was?cooperative?and?hardworking?until?he?returned?from?his?two?combat?tours?in?Vietnam.?Thereafter,?his?personality?was?completely?changed;?he?was?remote?and?bitter.?He?complained?that?television?news?about?the?war?was?inaccurate.?While?drinking?in?a?bar?with?his?sister?Linda?Moss,?defendant?cried?and?said?he?had?run?over?a?Vietnamese?child?while?driving?his?Army?supply?truck?during?maneuvers.?Defendant’s?mother?confirmed?her?son’s?personality?change?after?Vietnam?and?pleaded?for?his?life. Defendant?produced?documentary?evidence?that?he?had?received?the?Bronze?Star?for?combat?bravery?in?Vietnam.?The?citation?for?this?medal?indicated?that?defendant,?disregarding?his?own?safety,?had?leveled?”devastating”?machine-gun?fire?on?an?advancing?enemy?force?to?protect?tanks?that?were?taking?on?ammunition?from?his?supply?truck. Finally,?defendant?presented?evidence?about?his?efforts?to?learn?a?trade?in?the?Washington?State?Penitentiary.?A?prison?vocational?counselor?said?defendant?approached?him?for?assistance?in?entering?auto-body?and?welding?courses.?According?to?his?instructors,?defendant’s?performance?in?the?auto-?body?class?was?average;?his?performance?in?a?welding?class?was?excellent. Madrigal,?who?was?jointly?tried?on?the?issue?of?penalty,?also?presented?character?and?background?evidence?from?relatives.?Dr.?Mertz?expanded?upon?the?guilt?phase?evidence?of?Madrigal’s?mental?state.?Dr.?Mertz?said?Madrigal?still?had?little?recall?of?the?Burke?homicide?and?had?expressed?remorse.?She?reiterated?that?Madrigal?was?a?chronic?alcoholic?and?amphetamine?abuser?and?diagnosed?an?”atypical?pervasive?developmental?disorder”?with?antisocial?features.?These?conditions,?said?Dr.?Mertz,?impaired?Madrigal’s?capacity?to?appreciate?the?criminality?of?his?conduct?and?to?conform?his?behavior?to?law.?The?jury?sentenced?Madrigal?to?life?imprisonment?without?parole. [1]?(See?fn.?4.)?Guilt?Issuesfn.?4 Search?and?seizure?issues. Defendant?claims?his?convictions?must?be?reversed?because?the?evidence?linking?him?to?Burke’s?death?stems?from?illegal?searches?and?seizures.?(U.S.?Const.,?Amends.?IV,?XIV;?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???13.)?We?disagree.?[54?Cal.3d?429] The?pertinent?facts?are?gleaned?from?both?the?preliminary?hearing?and?the?superior?court?suppression?hearing.?On?the?afternoon?of?August?31,?1981,?CHP?Officer?Abbott?stopped?a?Chrysler?automobile?for?speeding?on?Interstate?15?near?Barstow.?Abbott?asked?defendant,?the?driver,?for?his?license;?defendant?produced?only?a?birth?certificate.?While?writing?the?speeding?ticket,?Abbott?asked?defendant?who?owned?the?car.?Defendant?said?”it?belonged?to?a?guy?in?the?back?seat”?but?also?indicated?that?the?passengers?were?hitchhikers.?Abbott?then?received?a?radio?message?that?defendant?was?wanted?on?an?outstanding?warrant.?Abbott?arrested?defendant,?placed?him?in?the?patrol?car,?and?radioed?for?assistance. Backup?units?arrived?within?two?or?three?minutes.?Abbott?then?approached?the?Chrysler?and?asked?the?five?passengers?who?owned?it.?All?shrugged?or?shook?their?heads.?Abbott?ordered?them?out?of?the?vehicle.?Coville?appeared?intoxicated,?so?Abbott?arrested?him?for?public?drunkenness?and?placed?him?in?another?patrol?unit.?Abbott?asked?again?who?owned?the?Chrysler?and?again?received?negative?responses.?Several?of?the?occupants?said?they?were?hitchhikers.?Abbott?then?searched?the?Chrysler’s?glove?compartment?and?visor?for?registration?papers.?None?were?found.?Abbott?also?radioed?for?a?registration?check?on?the?vehicle,?but?he?received?no?immediate?reply. While?Abbott?was?looking?inside?the?Chrysler?for?registration,?he?saw?a?wallet?lying?in?the?middle?of?the?front?seat,?the?position?previously?occupied?by?Coville.?Abbott?retrieved?the?wallet?and?asked?each?of?the?vehicle’s?occupants?who?owned?it.?Defendant?explicitly?denied?ownership,?as?did?all?the?others?with?the?possible?exception?of?the?intoxicated?Coville.?Abbott?then?opened?the?wallet?for?the?purpose?of?determining?its?owner.?He?found?identification?for?Eli?Yitshaky,?the?clerk?of?the?Pacoima?convenience?store?robbed?by?defendant?and?three?of?his?companions?early?that?morning. Abbott?eventually?learned?by?radio?that?the?Chrysler?was?registered?to?a?Mr.?Glover?of?Oroville,?but?the?car?had?not?been?reported?stolen.?The?passengers?were?asked?if?they?knew?Glover;?all?responded?negatively.?Smith,?Cram,?Madrigal,?and?Williams?were?released?by?the?roadside?with?their?belongings,?and?the?car?was?impounded.?Shortly?thereafter,?Abbott’s?investigation?linked?the?wallet?to?the?Pacoima?robbery.?Abbott?learned?that?defendant?and?his?five?passengers?fit?the?four?robbers’?general?descriptions.?The?four?released?passengers?were?located?and?arrested.?Smith?and?Cram?made?in-custody?statements?about?the?Burke?homicide. […]
