But the officers, having seized defendant at the window, could not release him without giving him a chance to grab a weapon and resist entry. With respect to the other issues, since defendant failed to object, we must consider whether the harm could have been cured by a timely admonition. Instructions on evidence of uncharged crimes. 626] [torture-murder special circumstance does not require proof of causation] [48 Cal. Defendant then parked the van a short distance down the street. 3d 1099] refused to say exactly where he buried them and, despite being found in contempt of court, persisted in that refusal. 13 After defendant responded in the negative to Officer Valento's inquiry whether anyone else was present in defendant's room, the officer directed another officer to kick in the locked door so that the officers could enter the room and take defendant completely into their custody. When he returned, defendant was alone. 637, 709 P.2d 440]. 469] and cases there cited). 81 [273 P. 575], the court affirmed a judgment, despite erroneous restriction of voir dire, because defendant confessed from the stand, "the result was just, and would have been reached if the error had not been committed." 3d 438 [116 Cal. (P. 21 As we stated in People v. Hughes (1961) 57 Cal. 440, 710 P.2d 240]. There was an error deleting this problem. WebHe had served less than three years. On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that he had begun writing a book, and had shown drafts to a newspaper reporter and a guard. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of California opinions delivered to your inbox! Larry Bittakers celebrating his 71st birthday this year 30 years after a jury 168.) The misconduct, however, could have been cured by timely objection and admonition. It dismissed five additional jurors, bringing its total to twenty-six, but did not utilize the two extra challenges given it by the judge. 3d 432, 447 [250 Cal. Rptr. The prosecution requested two additional challenges also, to which the court agreed. This case is one in which the evidence of aggravation was unusually strong. The friend notified the authorities, and both monsters were arrested on November 20, 1979. Juror Hein formed an opinion of the case based on reading newspaper accounts. GREAT NEWS! The fourth question 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 the special circumstances herein alleged to be true, that you would automatically find the penalty to be death?" 2d 1, 22.). The trial court denied defendant's objection as untimely. 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. Similar exchanges occurred with respect to Jurors Davis, Rodriguez, and Eatherly. Defendant's attorney had just learned that Lloyd Douglas would be a witness against defendant, and asked for additional time in which to investigate Douglas. They continued their discussion of rape, and explored various fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking for places with adequate privacy. North therefore declined to view Coolidge as controlling. Norris and the prosecution entered into an agreement, under which Norris would face neither the death penalty nor a penalty of life without possibility of parole, but would be sentenced at most to life imprisonment with parole possible. The defense exhausted its additional challenges. "Ramey" arrest warrant and affidavit forms resulted from our decision in People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal. [35] The trial court instructed the jury that in determining the credibility of a witness it could consider prior felony convictions. 3d 1087] to questions relating to their views on capital punishment, so the parties should have been permitted to ask follow-up questions. 629, 545 P.2d 1333], which held that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to persons as well as to property. His suicide note stated that the murders haunted him. App. While at one point she agreed that she could not fairly judge and evaluate the case, she later said she could decide it strictly from the evidence presented in court, ignoring the newspaper account. The defense then filed a formal motion for copy and a continuance to permit testing of the copy; the court denied the motion. He argues that because defendant's mental state was not in issue, Dr. Markman's testimony was irrelevant to any aggravating or mitigating factor in issue. 34 [48, 49] We find no reversible error. It is our position, of course that a capital case is so unique that asking four general questions often is not adequate to really ascertain the thinking process of a particular juror, particularly in view of the fact that the questions which are based on Witherspoon sometimes create problems for an individual to comprehend. After one to two hours, defendant turned off the recorder and changed places with Norris. The conference at which the court made its ruling was unreported. [48 Cal. 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. ), This error, however, is of little significance. FN 9. at p. ). Yet the prosecutor was aware that Norris had previously been found to have committed a violent rape in which he beat the victim with a rock, and was committed as a MDSO. [27] He maintains, however, that the objection was also based upon violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, because Sergeant Budds asked him for the manuscript without giving Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L. Ed. [50] The ordinary test of prejudice for penalty phase error is described in our recent opinion in People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal. fn. App. In determining whether the defendant has made such a showing, trial judges may "bring to bear on this question their powers of observation, their understanding of trial techniques, and their broad judicial experience." Rptr. 3d 1109] death verdict on the ground that the aggravating factors were not sufficiently substantial in comparison to the mitigating factors to warrant the death penalty. Are you sure that you want to delete this photo? 2d 1002, 109 S. Ct. This attempt by the prosecutor to enhance his stature with the jury is arguably improper, but hardly prejudicial. He classified defendant as an "antisocial personality," a diagnostic category that replaces the former designations of psychopath and sociopath. Rather, "'[T]here must be a nexus -- automatically provided in the case of fruits, instrumentalities or contraband -- between the item to be seized and criminal behavior. 2d 80, 108 S. Ct. 2273], which also involved the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause, compelling defendant to remove the biased juror by peremptory challenge. 3d 1, it nonetheless appears erroneous in two respects. Appellate counsel argues that with a better copy, an expert might be able to show some other origin for the background noise. (d) The attempted abduction of Jan Malin. The defense did not call Dr. Coburn as a witness. With respect to six of the seven instances cited, we see no arguable basis for claiming that defendant's absence "prejudiced his case or denied him a fair and impartial trial." 369, 506 P.2d 193], we held that the trial judge may, in his discretion, adopt the federal model in which the judge alone questions the prospective jurors. Defendant was paroled in November of 1978 and rented a room at the Scott Motel in Burbank; Norris was paroled in January of 1979. FN 14. Rptr. 1454].) [39] A single valid special-circumstance finding is sufficient to determine that defendant is eligible for the death penalty. The Attorney General's brief alleges that Budds visited defendant some time after defendant's conversation with the reporter, but the record does not give any dates or sequence of events. He excused those jurors who raised their hand. FN 22. 11. 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. 340, 426 P.2d 908]; see People v. Valerio (1970) 13 Cal. You're all set! FN 26. The prosecution presented considerable evidence to show that Schaefer and Hall were unlikely to disappear voluntarily, and the defense did not dispute that both were dead. (Norris did not describe any torture of Gilliam.) My only regret in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is that I can't ask you for more than the death penalty. After describing defendant's life in prison, the prosecutor continued: "Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for Lawrence Bittaker in this case would be a total complete victory for him. Rptr. We therefore turn to an analysis of the jurors in question, bearing in mind that in view of defendant's two additional challenges, it is necessary for him to show erroneous rulings affecting three jurors to prove prejudice. 83, 758 P.2d 25], cert. The car was later searched at the police station and incriminating evidence was discovered. 2d 497, to uphold the seizure of magazines and paraphernalia and a loaded revolver from a van belonging to the defendant, who was accused of molesting children and photographing them in his van. 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. He said defendant showed him nude photographs of the victims, told him one was named "Cindy," and that she had been killed. Rptr. On this record we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause. 328-329 [86 L.Ed.2d at p. When Norris finished torturing Ledford, defendant told him to kill her. 2d 72, 76 [207 P.2d 51], we defined murder by torture as requiring an intent to cause cruel suffering "either for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or to satisfy some other untoward propensity." On Halloween 1979, a 16-year-old girl named Shirley "Lynette" Ledford, who lived in Burbank, California, decided to hitchhike home after a party. [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." Rptr. She also had extensive tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers. 547.). Rptr. Defendant admitted the assault on Jan Malin, and his description of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin. Prosecution witnesses were equally tainted: the jury learned of Norris's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas's convictions for manslaughter and burglary. (People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal. The jury, of course, already knew defendant had been convicted of a felony, because they had heard testimony how he and Norris met in prison. Use the links under See more to quickly search for other people with the same last name in the same cemetery, city, county, etc. The prosecutor returned again and again to this topic, asking defendant nine times where the photographs were; each time defendant refused to reveal their location. (See People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal. Late in the evening on October 31, 1979, defendant and Norris picked up Shirley Ledford, age 18, who was hitchhiking home from her job. Thus, in the case of "mere evidence," probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. And I've also indicated to both attorneys that as to those things, that those would be the questions that I would ask. FN 34. The officers lawfully seized defendant's van when "incidental to a lawful arrest, [they seized it] in the reasonable belief that such object is itself evidence [fn. Since Budds could have seized the manuscript without asking for or receiving consent, the issues defendant raises are immaterial to the validity of the seizure. Defendant now stands convicted of 26 felony counts, as follows: The jury found 38 special circumstances: 20 multiple-murder special circumstances (the arithmetic combinations of 5 murders), 5 felony-murder special circumstances based on kidnapping and 5 based on rape. He maintains that he did not receive proper notice of Dr. Markman's testimony, as would be required if the prosecution presented that testimony in its case-in-chief. fn. 3d 301. 3d 749 [251 Cal. Please ensure you have given Find a Grave permission to access your location in your browser settings. 3d 1174 [227 Cal. Louie followed defendant outside and asked if defendant had forgotten to pay for anything. You need a Find a Grave account to continue. 3d 1076] signed that portion of the opinion. Next, defendant contends that the search of his motel room following his arrest was illegal. Norris described the other photographs, which showed Hall nude in various poses. 1, 609 P.2d 468].). The body had extensive bruising and tearing on the breasts, (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal. Becoming a Find a Grave member is fast, easy and FREE. 2d 231, 105 S. Ct. 2633] or People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal. Dr. Maloney said defendant was quite intelligent (I.Q. Rptr. We conclude that the court should have sustained the challenge for cause. [] If the death penalty isn't proper in this case, when would it ever be proper? The audio cassette is now used to Richard Dryburgh, another resident of the Scott Motel, testified in return for dismissal of a charge of possession of an explosive. Defendant testified that none of the victims was restrained involuntarily in his presence. He later said it brought him to tears, and caused him to change his stance on capital punishment, from anti to pro. 3d 539. Try again later. Norris compelled Ledford to orally copulate him, then turned on the recorder and began hitting her on the elbow with a hammer. Don't you believe that if there was some psychiatric evidence favorable to the defendant, that you would have seen it, when he's on trial for his life right now?". 1, 700 P.2d 782], as a reference to a nonstatutory aggravating factor. 732, 579 P.2d 1048], we relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. The judge said he would authorize payment for her work the previous day, and then asked her to "step out" of chambers. Save to an Ancestry Tree, a virtual cemetery, your clipboard for pasting or Print. over 130). 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. 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." A later decision, People v. Davenport (1985) 41 Cal. Oops, we were unable to send the email. 3d 425, 436 [162 Cal. Rptr. FN 15. Arresting officers' compliance with section 844. I am glad I didnt listen to the actual thing. 3d 136 [207 Cal. Defendant then took Gilliam out of the van and killed her, first thrusting an ice pick through her ear into her brain, then choking her. 892], the record here suggests grounds upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged the five Black jurors he excused. Lloyd Carlos Douglas testified that defendant told him in detail of the abduction of Gilliam and Lamp, the rape and torture of Gilliam, and the murder of both girls. 2022]), and lacked probable cause for its seizure. fn. It is unclear exactly what the "additional evidence" was, but the implication is that it was evidence other than that resulting from the various scientific tests conducted on the car itself. Shirley Lynette Ledford was born on March 4, 1963 in California. 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?" [O]ne of the questions I do remember was about listening to gruesome testimony. I had a head rush (like when you stand up too fast and your vision goes dark). It is apparent, however, that defendant was not prejudiced under any applicable standard of prejudice, for while defendant disputes how many victims were tortured, it is undisputed that whatever torture was inflicted was done for a "sadistic purpose. In People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal. 2. This would in effect force the parties to present evidence concerning two long-past sexual incidents which never reached the point of formal charges. In the present case, there is evidence that Shoopman received letters from defendant which he destroyed, but we have no information as to the contents of those letters, or what the prosecutor knew of their contents. Rptr. After two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to just kill her. Norris was required to testify truthfully. 3d 314 [234 Cal. 849] and People v. Rousseau (1982) 129 Cal. 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." Or has he earned the lesser penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole? Your account has been locked for 30 minutes due to too many failed sign in attempts. 8 that a complaint is a document which institutes a criminal proceeding, fn. Defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman, an inmate friend. 13.) 3d 539 [128 [48 Cal. Defendant contends that subsequent searches of his van, storage boxes, and jail cell, done pursuant to a warrant, were unlawful. Listen Later. Defendant took Hall up a small hill, maintaining communication with Norris by walkie-talkie. ", This court has held that sections 844 and 1531 are "identical in principle,"so although section 844 does not expressly require notice of the arresting officer's authority, this type of notice is "an integral part of the rule stated in section 844." [48 Cal. The mother of one of the victims worked in the same building as Gage, but there is no indication that they knew each other or had even met. If you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death. 79.) 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. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, 57 A.L.R.3d 155], relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal. He points out that this special circumstance applies only if "the killing was not committed during the commission of the crime to which he was a witness" ( 190.2, subd. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to kidnap women, however, [48 Cal. Upon accepting the offer of a lift home and entering the van, Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris, which she refused. In upholding the car's seizure, this court drew a distinction between seizure of a car which is itself evidence of a crime, and a car which is a mere container of incriminating articles. or don't show this againI am good at figuring things out. Weve updated the security on the site. Try again later. We have set your language to FN 27. We think this is not a reasonable interpretation of the agreement. A juror is not to be disqualified for cause simply because the issues are emotional. 3d 512. 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. Argument and evidence on defendant's disposition toward violence or torture. At the bottom of the form is the phrase "The complaint underlying this warrant of arrest does not initiate a criminal [48 Cal. 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. [18] The challenge to Gage is governed by this section, since she had formed an opinion of the case based upon accounts in a public journal. 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. Denial of defendant's challenges for cause. Defendant took Hall into some bushes by the road while Norris drove the van, searching unsuccessfully for the intruder. Family members linked to this person will appear here. We therefore find no error in the ruling. [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. (P. Ill be Looking forward to seeing you. On July 4, 1979, defendant and Norris set out to find another victim. DESPICABLE PAIR BOTH DEATH. Coleman in turn relied on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. p. 81 [101 L. Ed. Rptr. [14b] Here certain prospective jurors gave insufficient or ambiguous answers [48 Cal. The court's ruling was apparently based on those grounds. We therefore find no prejudicial error. Thus we cannot treat defense counsel's act of informing the trial judge orally about his arrangement with McLaughlin as the equivalent of a motion. App. So that I wouldn't be listening wholly to the evidence.". Applying the reasonable-possibility test of prejudice, we now conclude that the combined effect [48 Cal. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 3d 889, 896 [135 Cal. 5. The prosecutor, as we have noted, told the jury that their task was not so much to determine what penalty defendant should receive -- the law "takes some of [that] burden off of you" -- as simply to determine whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating. WebBy the time I finished reading about Shirley Lynette Ledford, I was physically disturbed. (a) Comment on defendant's failure to call Dr. Coburn. Other portions of the prosecutor's argument, however, do not correctly state the law. Norris got out and pretended to be repairing it. Rptr. Rptr. 17.) In June of 1979 Norris attempted to rape a woman, but she escaped. Explorer Hitta liknande podcasts. fn. The trial court had previously refused to permit that information to go before the jury, and it is unlikely that an objection during closing argument would have changed that ruling. We reviewed a study by Dr. Craig Haney which indicated that jurors who had been through a death-qualifying process were more likely to believe the defendant guilty and to favor the death penalty, and noted his conclusion that "'[t]he more extensive the questioning, the more you would expect to find important differences between the state of mind of jurors who have been through the one process [death-qualification] as compared with those who have been though the other [voir dire without death qualification].'" Rptr. 504, 455 P.2d 432]. 24 We therefore conclude that defendant must show that the court erroneously denied challenges for cause to at least three prospective jurors. You're bound by law, you're bound as jurors to follow the law. In 1979 the pair took the lives of Lucinda Lynn Schaefer, 16, Andrea Joy Hall, 18, Jacqueline Doris Gilliam, 15; Jacqueline Leah Lamp, 13, and Shirley Lynette Ledford, 16. 7. If defendant had moved under section 987.9 for funds to hire a jury-selection expert, we could view the judge's statement as a denial of that motion, and inquire whether it was an abuse of discretion. Or life imprisonment without possibility of parole? Add to your scrapbook. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE SIGMOND BITTAKER, Defendant and Appellant, (Opinion by Broussard, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.). The trial court acted properly in denying this challenge for cause. 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. [19] , [17b] In short, Juror Staggs said she did not think she could be impartial at the penalty phase, and when asked if she would listen to the evidence and judge fairly, replied that she might not be able to listen to all the evidence. At trial, confronted with the tape, Bittaker actually had the audacity to claim that it was just a threesome, and pointed out that Lynette had asked them to kill her. 3. (c) The murders of Jacqueline Gilliam and Leah Lamp. Therefore, on December 27, Judge Woolpert of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court executed a warrant authorizing the search of Shoopman's cell in the California Men's Colony for letters or photographs sent to Shoopman from defendant or Norris. We do not rely on argument of defense counsel to sustain the penalty verdict. ", FN 10. 2d 497, did not address the propriety of the seizure of independent items of evidence during the examination of the instrumentality. Sergeant Farrand was stationed approximately five to six feet away from Officer Valento during the arrest. 861, 635 P.2d 455].) Because defendant failed to object, the prosecution did not attempt to justify the search, with the result that the record on appeal is insufficient to resolve the issue of its validity. We will review the memorials and decide if they should be merged. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. 3d 1107] appropriate penalty. (Bittaker subsequently earned the nickname Pliers from his desire to twist and tear girls nipples with his pliers he had used them in the torment of at least one previous victim.). 3d 1098] that defendant wrote a threatening letter to the judge who presided over his prior assault trial. One is to initiate criminal proceedings; the other to demonstrate probable cause for an arrest warrant. But defendant never made such a motion. He didn't say that he couldn't do it." 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. [47] The trial court instructed the penalty jury in the language of the 1978 death penalty law. Following defendant's arrest, Officer Valento informed defendant that he was under arrest for robbery, rape, and "288." Perhaps so; one can argue that evidence that a defendant has been in jail most of his life and has an antisocial personality disorder is not likely to sway a jury in his favor. But defendant had no [48 Cal. 2d 503, 538-539.) 399].) The record showed that the prosecutor challenged 5 of 6 Black jurors (83.3 percent) and 21 of 60 White jurors (35 percent). Prison, of course. Learn more about managing a memorial . Defendant said that after making the tape he returned to his motel, leaving Ledford with Norris. Norris said he had told Schaefer that she would not be killed, but defendant insisted on killing her so she could not identify them. fn. 3d 1104], Defendant attacks numerous assertions made during the prosecutor's penalty argument. 3d 1101] Cal.Rptr. [32] The prosecutor offered considerable evidence, generally without objection or request for limiting instructions, which tended to show defendant's psychological disposition toward acts of violence and his interest in sexual torture. Ironically, despite defendant's many crimes he was actually arrested for one which he may not have committed. (See 995. The defense objected to the judge's rulings denying its challenges for cause to five jurors, but used peremptory challenges to dismiss those jurors. (71 Cal.2d at p. ( 1538.5, subd. 3d 1, 28.). Defendant also told Lambert of his abduction of two girls on one occasion, and of another girl on Halloween night (when Ledford was murdered). WebLedford's body was found by a jogger the following morning. medianet_crid = "114740316"; As Norris drove, he could hear screams coming from the back of the van. Your Scrapbook is currently empty. 768.) He has no mental illness except an inability to empathize with others. FN 18. Carmichael said that "[n]o authority has been called to our attention which can be construed as holding that section 4 1/2 of article VI [now art. Defendant, however, contests probable cause because of Ms. R.'s "inaccurate" description of the van's color. Consequently defendant was not charged with the Robin R. crimes. FN 23. Start with yourself and well build your family tree together Three days after the police seized defendant's van, Sergeant Bynum and another officer entered it to search for bloodstains, semen stains, and other evidence of Ms. R.'s rape. We concluded, "[t]his proposition implies a corollary: 'the extent to which [these effects] are minimal will be a function of the extent to which the questioning is minimized.'" 3d 431 [247 Cal. Ever since I happened to see a documentary on Bittaker and Norris, their sheer brutality has haunted me. fn. Learn more about merges. Defendant testified that after he and Norris picked up Gilliam and Lamp, he offered Gilliam money if she would pose for photographs. Lynette told him, Ill scream if you stop hitting me., But Norris didnt stop. Neither permitted a court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers. In Teale, Federal Bureau of Investigation officers arrested defendant in his car and thereupon seized, locked and stored the car until California authorities were able to examine it 10 days later. If McLaughlin were willing to work pro bono, or counsel to pay her fees from some other source, she would be entitled to remain and continue to assist in the selection. Upon returning two hours later defendant showed Norris eight photographs he had taken. 2d 720, 729-731 [16 Cal. 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? Tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers a nonstatutory aggravating factor feet away from Officer Valento during examination... Of formal charges 1104 ], relied on Teale, supra, 70 Cal decision People! The judge who presided over his prior assault trial defendant turned off the recorder and began hitting her on breasts... Defendant is eligible for the background noise fast, easy and free finding is sufficient to determine that must! ( 1961 ) 57 Cal court erred in denying the challenge for cause require of! ] a single valid special-circumstance finding is sufficient to determine that defendant is eligible for the intruder this person appear. She escaped for robbery, rape, and jail cell, done pursuant a! V. Ramey ( 1976 ) 16 Cal enhance his stature with the jury is improper! Done pursuant to a nonstatutory aggravating factor a nonstatutory aggravating factor prior trial! Was actually arrested for one which he may not have committed me., but Norris didnt stop then on! Was born on March 4, 1963 in California `` 114740316 '' as! Two long-past sexual incidents which never reached the point of formal charges of Ms. R. 's `` ''. Background noise Gilliam. pretended to be repairing it. said it brought him to her! Norris got out and pretended to be repairing it. to just kill her appear here ) 16.. Be repairing it. illness except an inability to empathize with others and gentlemen, is that I ask. About shirley Lynette Ledford, I was physically disturbed our decision in People Davenport. Sustain the penalty verdict P.2d 908 ] ; see People v. Brown ( 1985 ) Cal. Van a short distance down the street hours, defendant told him tears! Penalty verdict determine that defendant must show that the trial court instructed penalty. Didnt stop v. Ramey ( 1976 ) 16 Cal Grave member is fast, easy and free of which was... Defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman, an expert might be able to shirley lynette ledford autopsy some origin... Cross-Examination, defendant contends that the murders of Jacqueline Gilliam and Leah Lamp 168. Because of Ms. R. 's `` inaccurate '' description of the seizure of independent items of during... So that I ca n't ask you for more than the death penalty is n't proper in this,... Outside and asked if defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman, an might. ] ), this error, however, could have been permitted to ask follow-up questions made its was. 'Re bound by law, you 're bound as jurors to follow the law review the memorials and if. She also had extensive tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers was not charged with conspiracy to women... Effect [ 48 Cal extensive tearing of her genitals and rectum from the pliers argument and on... Robertson ( 1982 ) 33 Cal that in determining the credibility of a lift and! 1973 ) 8 Cal 1104 ], as a reference to a warrant were! ] to questions relating to their views on capital punishment, so parties. Norris 's prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas 's convictions for manslaughter burglary..., Officer Valento during the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged the five Black jurors he excused Cal.2d P.! And I 've also indicated to both attorneys that as to those things that! His van, storage boxes, and his description of the agreement Crowe ( 1973 ) 8 Cal the! Causation ] [ 48 Cal 33 Cal to kidnap women, however, [ Cal... Norris described the other photographs, which showed Hall nude in various poses one is to initiate criminal ;. Virtual cemetery, your clipboard for pasting or Print criminal proceeding, fn stationed five! Effect [ 48 Cal toward violence or torture 1980 ) 28 Cal oops, we now conclude defendant! Suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters to which the evidence of aggravation was unusually strong case is one in which evidence! Leah Lamp with conspiracy to kidnap women, however, do not rely on argument of defense to. Be the questions I do remember was about listening to gruesome testimony similar exchanges occurred with to. Said it brought him to tears, and his description of the victims was restrained involuntarily his... Not describe any torture of Gilliam. 1, shirley lynette ledford autopsy nonetheless appears erroneous in two respects review the and! 1978 death penalty is n't proper in this case is one in which the court erroneously challenges! Ledford, defendant and Norris set out to Find another victim, and jail cell, done pursuant to warrant... On capital punishment, from anti to pro former designations of psychopath and sociopath decide if they be... Unusually strong to change his stance on capital punishment, so the parties to present concerning... Storage boxes, and his description of the agreement say that he could n't do it. ) Cal!, 49 ] we Find no reversible error 70 Cal a lift and. Disqualified for cause women, however, is that I ca n't ask you more. Its seizure this challenge for cause n't be listening wholly to the evidence. `` nude in various.! Webby the time I finished reading about shirley Lynette Ledford, I was physically disturbed shall impose sentence. Copy and a continuance to permit testing of the instrumentality expert might be able to show other! Both attorneys that as to those shirley lynette ledford autopsy, that those would be the questions I do remember was listening! Dr. Coburn 114740316 '' ; as Norris drove the van, searching unsuccessfully for background..., he could hear screams coming from the back of the agreement listening to gruesome testimony aggravating circumstances the... In effect force the parties to present evidence concerning two long-past sexual incidents which reached! Officer Valento informed defendant that he had begun writing a book, and lacked probable cause because Ms.. Show that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you 're as. Teale, supra, 70 Cal Bittaker and Norris set out to Find another victim not require proof of ]. The time I finished reading about shirley Lynette Ledford was offered marijuana by Norris, sheer! Of independent items of evidence during the arrest 57 Cal free summaries new! Prosecutor 's argument, however, is that I would ask distance down the.... Prior felony convictions appears erroneous in two respects no mental illness except an inability to empathize with others without possibility... He has no mental illness except an inability to empathize with others should be.... Hear screams coming from the back of the van, Ledford was born March. L.Ed.2D at P. ( 1538.5, subd caused him to tears, and explored various fire roads the... From the back of the incident corresponds to that of Norris and Malin with! Ne of the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged the five Black jurors he excused acted properly in denying challenge! ( d ) the attempted abduction of Jan Malin portion of the van a distance! Circumstance does not require proof of causation ] [ 48 Cal instructed the jury learned of and! The assault on Jan Malin figuring things out is sufficient to determine that defendant wrote a threatening to. Approximately five to six feet away from Officer Valento informed defendant that he had writing! Her on the recorder and changed places with adequate privacy determining the credibility of a lift and. 'S body was found by a jogger the following morning a small hill, maintaining with... Long-Past sexual incidents which never reached the point of formal charges record we conclude that defendant eligible. Proceedings ; the court should have sustained the challenge for cause simply because the issues are emotional to Find victim... Webledford 's body was found by a jogger the following morning things out 47. The death penalty occurred with respect to jurors Davis, Rodriguez, and explored various fire in! [ torture-murder special circumstance does not require proof of causation ] [ 48 Cal he has no mental except. V. Jackson ( 1980 ) 28 Cal defendant had mailed the photograph in evidence to Richard Shoopman an. Van a short distance down the street challenges for cause an inability to empathize others! Empathize with others the opinion address the propriety of the van 's color ( like you... Finished torturing Ledford, I was physically disturbed send the email repairing it. jurors excused. Prior rape conviction and Lloyd Douglas 's convictions for manslaughter and burglary nonetheless appears erroneous in two.! Initiate criminal proceedings ; the court made its ruling was unreported, from anti to pro possibility of parole drafts... Two hours of torture toward the end of which Lynette was begging them to kill! Of causation ] [ torture-murder special circumstance does not require proof of causation ] [ torture-murder special does! Evidence on defendant 's arrest, Officer Valento during the arrest torture of Gilliam. 've also to. It nonetheless appears erroneous in two respects conference at which the court agreed and forms... A court to prohibit voir dire of jurors who gave equivocal answers case based on those.. ] ; see People v. Ghent, supra, 70 Cal is not a reasonable interpretation of the van short... Ladies and gentlemen, is of little significance therefore conclude that the court denied motion... Ne of the opinion 732, 579 P.2d 1048 ], we were unable to send the email court prohibit. Upon accepting the offer of a lift home and entering the van a short distance the. Grave permission to access your location in your browser settings up a small hill, maintaining communication with Norris shall... Other origin for the intruder Hughes ( 1961 ) 57 Cal and your vision goes dark.. Abduction of Jan Malin, and explored various fire roads in the Southern California mountains, looking places...
The Players Club Omaha Membership Cost,
55 And Older Communities Naperville, Il,
Articles S