Articles Tagged: 820 P.2d 559

People?v.?Bacigalupo?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?103?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?335;?820?P.2d?559 [No.?S004764. Dec?9,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MIGUEL?ANGEL?BACIGALUPO,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?93351,?Thomas?C.?Hastings,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.J.,?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment.) COUNSEL Cliff?Gardner?and?Melissa?Johnson,?under?appointments?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorney?General,?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Dane?R.?[1?Cal.4th?118]?Gillette?and?Christopher?J.?Wei,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION KENNARD,?J. This?is?an?automatic?appeal?from?a?judgment?of?death.?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b);?unless?otherwise?indicated?all?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code.)?A?jury?convicted?defendant?Miguel?Angel?Bacigalupo?of?two?counts?of?first?degree?murder?(??187)?and?two?counts?of?robbery?(??211).?The?jury?found?to?be?true?allegations?of?a?multiple-?murder?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3))?and,?as?to?each?count?of?murder,?a?robbery-murder?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?The?jury?also?found?that?defendant?had?personally?used?a?firearm?in?committing?the?murders?and?robberies.?(??12022.5.) Defendant?waived?the?right?to?a?jury?trial?on?a?charge?of?possession?of?a?concealed?firearm?by?an?ex-felon?(??12021)?and?on?two?allegations?that?he?had?suffered?prior?felony?convictions.?After?hearing?testimony,?the?trial?court?convicted?defendant?of?the?charge,?found?one?prior?felony?allegation?to?be?not?true,?but?sustained?the?allegation?that?defendant?previously?had?been?convicted?and?sentenced?to?prison?in?New?York?for?selling?cocaine?(??667.5,?subd.?(b)). We?affirm?the?judgment?in?its?entirety. Facts Guilt?Phase?Evidence Orestes?Guerrero,?a?Peruvian?immigrant,?owned?a?jewelry?store?in?San?Jose.?Defendant’s?mother,?Dina?Padilla?Golden,?who?is?also?from?Peru,?met?Orestes?through?friends?in?the?Peruvian?community?in?early?1983.?When?defendant’s?mother?learned?that?defendant?was?moving?from?New?York?to?Palo?Alto,?she?asked?Guerrero?to?give?him?a?job?in?the?store?and?to?train?him?in?the?jewelry?trade. In?October?1983,?defendant?moved?from?New?York?to?California,?where?he?lived?with?his?mother?and?stepfather?in?their?Palo?Alto?apartment.?He?found?work?as?a?dishwasher?at?a?restaurant,?but?soon?left?for?another?job.?On?the?morning?of?December?29,?1983,?defendant?told?his?mother?and?stepfather?he?had?quit?this?second?job. Carlos?Valdiviezo?lived?in?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store.?He?had?left?Peru?and?entered?the?United?States?illegally?with?Orestes’s?brother,?Jose?Luis?[1?Cal.4th?119]?Guerrero.?On?the?morning?of?December?28,?1983,?Valdiviezo?saw?defendant?in?the?jewelry?store?with?Orestes?and?Jose?Guerrero.?Valdiviezo?heard?Orestes?say?that?defendant?was?the?son?of?a?Peruvian?woman?and?that?he?had?been?recommended?to?work?in?the?jewelry?store.?fn.?1 The?next?morning,?Valdiviezo?and?Orestes?Guerrero?put?jewelry?into?the?jewelry?cases?in?the?front?area?of?the?store.?The?two?men?then?left?the?store?to?pick?up?some?diamonds;?they?returned?shortly?before?noon.?Half?an?hour?later,?defendant?arrived?at?the?jewelry?store;?he?was?given?the?task?of?operating?a?silverthreading?machine?used?in?making?jewelry.?While?assisting?defendant,?who?seemed?to?be?having?trouble?operating?the?machine,?Valdiviezo?noticed?that?defendant?was?quite?nervous.?Valdiviezo?then?left?the?jewelry?store?to?change?the?spark?plugs?in?Orestes?Guerrero’s?car. When?Valdiviezo?returned?an?hour?later,?defendant?pointed?a?handgun?at?him?and?ordered?him?to?lie?down.?Defendant?put?the?gun?next?to?Valdiviezo’s?head?and?tried?to?shoot,?but?the?gun?jammed.?Valdiviezo?ran?and?hid?in?the?store’s?bathroom. About?20?minutes?later,?Valdiviezo?left?his?hiding?place?after?he?heard?someone?leave?through?the?front?door?of?the?store.?Valdiviezo?discovered?the?dead?bodies?of?Orestes?and?Jose?Guerrero;?both?had?been?shot.?The?jewelry?cases?at?the?front?of?the?store?were?all?empty. Valdiviezo?immediately?contacted?Orestes?Guerrero’s?wife?and?told?her?what?had?happened.?Because?of?his?fear?of?deportation,?he?did?not?talk?with?the?police?until?several?hours?after?the?killings. Later?that?evening,?the?police?arrested?defendant?at?his?mother?and?stepfather’s?apartment?in?Palo?Alto,?just?as?his?stepfather?was?preparing?to?take?defendant?to?the?airport.?Defendant’s?suitcases?contained?the?jewelry?taken?from?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store.?After?advisement?and?waiver?of?his?constitutional?rights,?defendant?admitted?killing?the?Guerrero?brothers,?but?claimed?he?had?done?so?under?threat?of?death?by?the?Colombian?Mafia. Defendant?presented?no?evidence?at?the?guilt?phase?of?the?trial. Penalty?Phase?Evidence As?evidence?of?criminal?activity?by?the?defendant?involving?force?or?violence?(??190.3,?factor?(b))?the?prosecution?presented?testimony?from?two?[1?Cal.4th?120]?witnesses,?Maggie?Granell?and?Dominic?DiGregorio,?about?defendant’s?1978?participation?in?an?armed?robbery?of?a?grocery?store?and?the?subsequent?shootout?with?police?in?New?York.?In?addition,?the?prosecution?offered?evidence?that?defendant?had?suffered?two?prior?felony?convictions?(??190.3,?factor?(c))?for?sale?of?a?controlled?substance?and?possession?of?a?firearm?in?New?York. In?mitigation,?the?defense?presented?the?testimony?of?defendant’s?mother?and?two?other?witnesses?(a?minister?and?a?psychologist),?both?of?whom?had?met?with?defendant?in?jail?after?his?arrest?on?this?case. Defendant’s?mother?testified?that?defendant?was?the?youngest?of?three?children.?His?parents?separated?when?he?was?seven?years?old;?shortly?thereafter,?defendant?and?his?mother?moved?from?Peru?to?Mexico?City.?Eventually?they?came?to?New?York?City?where?defendant’s?mother?worked?long?hours?and?left?defendant?unattended.?As?a?teenager,?defendant?visited?his?sister?in?Spain.?After?the?two?had?a?quarrel,?defendant?spent?one?year?in?a?Spanish?orphanage?until?his?return?to?the?United?States?could?be?arranged.?In?1980,?when?defendant?was?in?prison?in?New?York,?his?older?brother?was?killed?during?a?robbery. Reverend?Richard?Lyon?testified?that?he?had?met?with?defendant?about?a?dozen?times?since?the?arrest?in?this?case.?He?showed?the?jury?some?religious?drawings?that?defendant?had?made?for?him,?and?said?that?defendant?was?attempting?to?gain?personal?insight?through?religion. Based?on?his?examination?of?defendant,?Dr.?John?Brady,?a?clinical?psychologist,?concluded?that?defendant?suffered?from?chronic?depression.?He?based?that?conclusion?on?defendant’s?conduct,?which?included?attempts?at?self-mutilation.?In?his?view,?younger?offenders?such?as?defendant?might?be?rehabilitated?through?the?penal?system.?On?cross-examination,?the?prosecutor?questioned?Dr.?Brady?about?defendant’s?disciplinary?problems?while?in?prison?in?New?York.?Brady?attributed?those?problems,?which?included?assaultive?conduct,?to?defendant’s?efforts?to?protect?himself. Guilt?Phase?Issues Validity?of?the?Warrantless?Arrest?and?Search Defendant?contends?that?the?trial?court?committed?reversible?error?in?admitting?evidence?obtained?as?the?result?of?his?warrantless?arrest. The?relevant?facts?are?as?follows:?At?8:30?p.m.?on?the?day?of?the?killings,?based?on?information?provided?by?Valdiviezo?and?members?of?the?Guerrero?[1?Cal.4th?121]?family,?officers?of?the?San?Jose?and?Palo?Alto?police?departments?arrived?at?the?apartment?defendant?shared?with?his?mother?and?stepfather?to?arrest?him?for?the?murders?of?the?Guerrero?brothers?a?few?hours?earlier.?Because?the?murders?occurred?in?San?Jose,?but?defendant?lived?in?Palo?Alto,?officers?of?both?the?San?Jose?and?Palo?Alto?police?departments?participated?in?the?arrest. San?Jose?homicide?Detective?James?Smith?was?in?charge.?He?had?no?arrest?or?search?warrant.?He?did?not?learn?defendant’s?identity?and?address?until?after?6:30?p.m.,?and?believed?that?the?extra?time?involved?in?obtaining?a?warrant?after?regular?working?hours?increased?the?likelihood?that?defendant?would?leave?California?or?dispose?of?evidence.?He?did?consider?obtaining?a?telephonic?warrant?(see????1526,?subd.?(b),?1528,?subd.?(b)),?but?concluded?that?it?would?be?too?time?consuming?and?too?”risky”?under?the?circumstances. Detective?Smith?and?two?other?officers?went?to?the?front?door?of?the?apartment.?Smith?knocked?on?the?door?and?defendant’s?mother,?Mrs.?Golden,?answered.?Smith?asked?if?defendant?was?at?home;?Mrs.?Golden?answered,?”Yes,”?and?stepped?back.?As?she?did?so,?the?officers?entered?the?apartment. Officer?Moises?Reyes?ordered?defendant?to?come?out?of?a?locked?bathroom,?arrested?him,?took?him?outside,?and?had?him?sit?in?the?back?of?a?police?car.?Reyes?then?advised?defendant?of?his?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436,?479?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?726,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974].?After?waiving?his?rights,?defendant?admitted?killing?the?two?Guerrero?brothers. Defendant’s?stepfather,?Don?Golden,?gave?written?authorization?for?the?officers?to?search?the?apartment.?Golden?removed?from?his?car?suitcases?belonging?to?defendant?and?handed?them?to?the?police. On?the?way?to?the?police?station,?defendant?led?Officer?Reyes?to?some?bushes?near?Orestes?Guerrero’s?jewelry?store?where?defendant?had?abandoned?the?gun?used?in?the?killings.?At?the?station,?defendant?signed?a?written?authorization?for?a?search?of?his?suitcases.?They?contained?jewelry?taken?from?the?display?cases?in?Orestes?Guerrero’s?store. [1a]?Before?trial,?defendant?moved?under?section?1538.5?to?suppress?the?jewelry,?the?empty?jewelry?boxes,?the?gun?used?in?the?killings,?and?the?statements?he?had?made?to?the?police?(see?People?v.?Superior?Court?(Zolnay)?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?729,?733?[125?Cal.Rptr.?798,?542?P.2d?1390]),?claiming?that?the?evidence?was?the?product?of?his?unlawful?arrest?without?a?warrant.?The?prosecution?argued?that?the?arrest?was?valid?based?on?either?of?two?exceptions?to?the?warrant?requirement:?exigent?circumstances?or?the?consent?of?[1?Cal.4th?122]?defendant’s?mother?to?the?officers’?entry?into?the?apartment.?The?trial?court?agreed?there?were?exigent?circumstances?and?denied?defendant’s?suppression?motion.?The?court?also?determined?that?the?written?consents?to?search?by?defendant?and?his?stepfather?were?voluntarily?given.?We?find?no?error?in?these?rulings. The?Fourth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?prohibits?”unreasonable?searches?and?seizures.”?[2]?”[T]he?arrest?of?a?person?is?’quintessentially?a?seizure’?”?within?the?meaning?of?the?Fourth?Amendment.?(Payton?v.?New?York?(1980)?445?U.S.?573,?585?[63?L.Ed.2d?639,?650,?100?S.Ct.?1371],?citation?omitted.)?Although?a?warrantless?arrest?in?a?public?place?does?not?offend?the?Fourth?Amendment?so?long?as?the?arresting?officer?has?reasonable?cause?to?believe?that?the?person?to?be?arrested?has?committed?a?felony?(United?States?v.?Watson?(1976)?423?U.S.?411,?422[46?L.Ed.2d?598,?608,?96?S.Ct.?820];?see???836,?subd.?3;?People?v.?Campa?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?870,?878?[206?Cal.Rptr.?114,?686?P.2d?634]),?an?arrest?in?a?person’s?home?requires?an?arrest?warrant.?(Payton?v.?New?York,?supra,?at?pp.?589-590?[63?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?653];?People?v.?Ramey?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?263,?275?[127?Cal.Rptr.?629,?545?P.2d?1333].)?The?warrant?requirement?is?excused,?however,?when?exigent?circumstances?require?prompt?action?by?the?police?”to?prevent?imminent?danger?to?life?…?or?to?forestall?the?imminent?escape?of?a?suspect?or?destruction?of?evidence.”?(16?Cal.3d?at?p.?276.) Although?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?recognized?exigent?circumstances?as?an?exception?to?the?Fourth?Amendment’s?warrant?requirement?(Payton?v.?New?York,?supra,?445?U.S.?at?pp.?588-590?[63?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?652-653]),?it?has?yet?to?delineate?the?precise?contours?of?that?exception.?The?court?has,?however,?described?an?in?bank?opinion?by?a?federal?appeals?court,?Dorman?v.?United?States?(D.C.?Cir.?1970)?435?F.2d?385,?as?”a?leading?federal?case?defining?exigent?circumstances?….”?(Welsh?v.?Wisconsin?(1984)?466?U.S.?740,?751,?752?[80?L.Ed.2d?732,?744,?104?S.Ct.?2091].) [3]?To?determine?whether?exigent?circumstances?support?the?decision?to?make?an?arrest?without?first?obtaining?a?warrant,?Dorman?v.?United?States,?supra,?435?F.2d?at?pages?392-393,?sets?out?the?following?pertinent?factors:?the?gravity?of?the?offense?involved;?whether?the?subject?of?the?arrest?is?reasonably?believed?to?be?armed;?whether?probable?cause?is?clear;?whether?the?suspect?is?likely?to?be?found?on?the?premises?entered;?and?the?likelihood?that?the?suspect?will?escape?if?not?promptly?arrested.?We?recently?applied?the?Dorman?factors?in?People?v.?Williams?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1139?[259?Cal.Rptr.?473,?774?P.2d?146]. [1b]?Here,?application?of?the?factors?specified?in?Dorman?v.?United?States,?supra,?435?F.2d?at?pages?392-393,?establishes?the?existence?of?exigent?[1?Cal.4th?123]?circumstances,?thus?justifying?the?warrantless?arrest?of?defendant?in?his?home.?Detective?Smith?knew?that?two?men?had?just?been?shot?to?death.?Information?from?eyewitness?Valdiviezo?and?from?other?members?of?the?Peruvian?community?provided?the?police?with?strong?probable?cause?to?believe?that?defendant?was?the?killer,?that?he?was?likely?to?be?armed,?and?that?he?would?be?at?the?apartment?he?shared?with?his?mother?and?stepfather.?The?police?also?knew?that?defendant?was?a?Peruvian?national?who?had?recently?come?to?California?from?New?York,?and?that?he?was?aware?that?Valdiviezo?could?identify?him,?which?increased?the?likelihood?that?defendant?would?flee.?These?circumstances,?when?considered?together,?were?”more?than?sufficiently?urgent?to?justify”?the?warrantless?arrest?of?defendant?at?home.?(People?v.?Williams,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?1112,?1139.)?Accordingly,?the?trial?court’s?admission?of?evidence?resulting?from?that?arrest?was?proper. Because?of?our?conclusion?that?the?warrantless?arrest?of?defendant?was?valid,?we?need?not?address?the?prosecution’s?alternative?theory?of?consent. Failure?to?Disclose?Confidential?Informant [4]?In?the?trial?court,?defendant?moved?for?disclosure?of?the?identity?of?a?confidential?informant.?The?prosecution?opposed?the?motion,?asserting?the?privilege?against?disclosure?set?out?in?Evidence?Code?section?1041.?The?trial?court?held?an?in?camera?hearing,?and?after?hearing?evidence?denied?the?defense?motion. Defendant?contends?that?the?informant?could?have?provided?material?evidence?beneficial?to?the?defense?(see?People?v.?Borunda?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?523,?527?[113?Cal.Rptr.?825,?522?P.2d?1]),?and?that?therefore?the?trial?court?erred?in?denying?disclosure.?After?a?careful?review?of?the?sealed?transcript?of?the?in?camera?hearing?held?by?the?trial?court,?we?reject?defendant’s?claim. Alleged?Instructional?Errors Requested?Instructions?on?Duress Immediately?after?his?arrest,?defendant?talked?to?Officer?Reyes?after?waiving?his?constitutional?rights?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona,?supra,?384?U.S.?436,?479?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?726].?At?first,?defendant?denied?his?involvement?in?the?jewelry?store?incident,?but?later?he?admitted?killing?the?Guerrero?brothers.?Defendant?made?vague?reference?to?a?group?he?called?the?”Colombian?Mafia,”fn.?2?which?he?said?had?”contracted”?him?to?commit?the?double?murder?and?threatened?to?kill?him?and?his?family?if?he?did?not?do?so.?[1?Cal.4th?124]?Defendant?said?he?was?to?turn?the?stolen?jewelry?over?to?the?Colombian?Mafia?in?New?York. At?trial,?Officer?Reyes?testified?to?defendant’s?admissions?made?about?the?killings?and?defendant’s?comments?about?the?Colombian?Mafia.?Defendant?did?not?testify. The?prosecution?offered?alternative?theories?to?support?defendant’s?guilt?of?first?degree?murder:?the?killings?were?premeditated?and?deliberate,?and?they?occurred?in?the?course?of?a?robbery.?(??189.)?The?trial?court?instructed?the?jury?on?both?of?these?theories.?At?the?prosecution’s?request,?the?court?also?instructed?the?jury?on?the?defense?of?duress?as?defined?in?CALJIC?No.?4.40?(4th?ed.?1979,?bound?vol.;?unless?otherwise?indicated,?all?further?references?to?CALJIC?are?to?this?edition),?and?it?gave?a?modified?version?of?CALJIC?No.?4.41,?fn.?3?informing?the?jury?that?duress?was?not?a?defense?to?a?charge?of?homicide. The?defense?acknowledged?that?duress?would?not?be?a?complete?defense?to?murder,?but?argued?that?it?should?reduce?criminal?culpability?by?negating?the?ability?to?premeditate?and?deliberate.?Accordingly,?defense?counsel?requested?the?court?to?instruct?the?jury?on?this?theory?of?duress?and?to?give?an?additional?instruction?on?manslaughter.?Counsel?also?asked?for?permission?to?argue?this?theory?to?the?jury.?The?court?denied?each?of?these?requests. […]