We did not hold that Daniel Hernandez and Arturo Hernandez provided ineffective representation. To the contrary, we noted that, on remand, the superior court might appoint them as counsel. Accordingly, it is clear that a criminal defendant need not demonstrate prejudice resulting from a violation of that right in order to have his conviction reversed.
A defendant whose request to substitute counsel is granted cannot complain on appeal that the trial court should have denied that request. See Wheat v. Superior Court 8 Cal. Our decision in Drumgoaccordingly, has no application here.
You understand because your attorneys have a contract with you and with your family, those two contracts may at some point be in conflict; the contract with the family may present a conflict at some point with the contract with you? Do you understand that possibility does exi[s]t?
I just want to make perfectly sure you understand. I understand. Do you realize the contract may contain certain provisions which may create potential areas of conflict between you and your attorneys? Understanding that, do you wish at this time the opportunity to talk to an independent attorney? I waive that. Do you understand if at any time in the future you change your mind and desire to obtain independent legal advice regarding the contract, you have the right to ask the court to appoint an attorney to discuss that matter with you?
Both Messrs. I do wish to impress upon you the importance of Mr. Ramirez being in the contract, and that has to have prime consideration. Because of the two contracts, the court will request if at any time there is the slightest possibility that a potential conflict might exist, you immediately inform whatever court this is in so that that problem can be raised and taken care of.
Do you understand the court is ordering you [to] do that? Arturo Hernandez: We understand fully; and, for the record, we have indicated to the court in the past that at this point we anticipate no conflict of interest.
We have our standard retainer agreement that we have used in many, many different felony cases, including murder cases. We have no question in our mind at this point that there is a conflict in this case; however, we realize the concerns of the court.
As we stated before, we have no knowledge of any potential conflicts; but if there are any, we will notify whatever court this case is before. Do you realize, both Messrs. Hernandez, the family funds may be insufficient to adequately reimburse you for your services in this 27 matter and, recognizing that fact, do you understand it may be necessary once you are attorneys of record in this case to perform some or all of your services on a pro bono basis? Arturo Hernandez: We realize that, your honor, and we are willing to undertake that risk.
Daniel Hernandez: Yes. I agree with that. Arturo Hernandez: It covers through the trial, your Honor, and any post-trial remedies that my client may have. Ramirez any facts, both negative and positive, which would bear not only on your ability to represent him but on any publicity that might come from your representation? Arturo Hernandez: Yes, we have. We have fully discussed with him on several occasions our background, and he is satisfied and he is willing to undertake our retainment in this case.
Ramirez, are you satisfied with the disclosures that have been made to you? Roldan 35 Cal. An actual conflict of interest occurred in Holloway v. Arkansas U. Sullivan U. Unless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court need not initiate an inquiry. Taylor U. The defendant in Mickens claimed he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his appointed attorney earlier had represented the murder victim on a juvenile matter.
The present case does not involve concurrent representation of multiple defendants as in Holloway and Sullivanor even prior representation of the victim as in Mickens. Defense counsel in the present case had entered into a contract with both defendant and his family to represent defendant, which defendant now claims created a possible financial conflict of interest. The trial court did not err and was not required to review the terms and conditions of the retainer agreement. Defendant contends that his waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel was defective.
We need not, and do not, decide whether defendant validly waived his right to conflict-free counsel because defendant has not shown, and expressly disclaims an intention to show on appeal, that he was denied his right to conflict- free counsel.
Ramirez refused to speak with him anymore. Ramirez he has answered in a logical, intelligent fashion. From his questions I at this point do not have any question regarding his ability.
He has remembered things I have said at prior hearings and reported them back to me. Ramirez for a lengthy period of time. We have seen him on almost a daily basis. We have conducted extensive conversations with him. We have conducted extensive investigations of the case with him. We have done a tremendous amount of work with him. We have no problems with him understanding, with him being very rational, very intelligent. We have no problems. Ramirez, could you tell me: how many years of school have you had?
A defendant is mentally incompetent for purposes of this chapter if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.
Hayes 21 Cal. Hayessupra21 Cal. In the present case, there was no substantial evidence that defendant was mentally incompetent. See People v. Panah 35 Cal. Howard 1 Cal. Defendant further argues that the trial court erred in failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte. Laudermilk 67 Cal. With respect to that, there is no evidence upon which I might conclude so far that the defendant is in any way unable to understand and participate in the proceedings.
That is an avenue I think that has to be explored one way or another. I realize that that is going to be a very difficult one for you, but I would like you to get working on that as well. Motion for Change of Venue Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue under sectiondepriving him of his rights under article I, section 15 of the California Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The offenses with which defendant was charged occurred between June 27, and August 8, Defendant was arrested on August 31,and the felony complaint against him was filed on September 3, Nearly a year after his arrest, on July 21,following the preliminary hearing, defendant filed a motion for change of venue. The trial court conducted an extensive hearing on the motion which spanned two months.
The court viewed hours of videotape recordings of television news broadcasts. Paul Strand, Ph. The survey revealed that About half Just over 10 percent of those polled said they had taken special precautions. At the time of the survey, more than a year after defendant was arrested, only Only one person 0. Strand testified that the levels of recognition and predisposition were the highest he had ever seen.
Police increased their patrols, gave advice on how to avoid being victimized, and gave free deadbolt locks to the elderly. The court noted that although the survey indicated that nearly all of those surveyed had heard of the case, and about half said they thought defendant was responsible based upon what they had heard, the survey did not show that the people polled were predisposed or prejudiced. Panahsupra35 Cal. People v. Jenkins 22 Cal. Coffman and Marlow 34 Cal. And defendant 38 did not show that the media coverage was unfair or slanted against him or revealed incriminating facts that were not introduced at trial.
Compare Sheppard v. Maxwell U. Jenkinssupra22 Cal. Coffman and Marlowsupra34 Cal. The trial court correctly noted that because of the number of prospective jurors that could be assembled in Los Angeles County, it was likely that an impartial jury could be chosen. And this turned out to be the case. When asked in the juror questionnaire what, if anything, they had learned about the case, they indicated, at most, only the most general familiarity with the case.
Ramirez was accused of entering a home in Orange County and slaying someone there. I briefly saw the accused captured on TV. But I have not said he is guilty or innocent. Citing Rideau v. Louisiana U. The defendant in Rideau was filmed in his jail cell, the morning after his arrest, flanked by two state troopers.
He was interrogated without counsel by the sheriff and confessed to bank robbery, kidnapping, and murder. The circumstances in Rideau bear no resemblance to the circumstances in the present case. With few exceptions, the media reports were accurate. And the voir dire confirmed that the jury ultimately selected was largely unaware of, or had forgotten, the details of the media coverage by the time of trial.
Defendant argues he was denied a reliable determination of his penalty guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment, citing Caldwell v. Mississippi U. North Carolina U. Defendant fails to explain how either of these cases has any relevance to the present case. We have now seen Channel 11, and this is Channel 4, and they are the same. And I have no reason to believe that Channel 2 or Channel 7 or 9 or 13 or the rest of them are any different.
I am aware of the fact that all of the local news media have given inordinate coverage to this case. I know that. And these cassettes that we have seen have refreshed my memory. Your point, in other words, is made regarding the extent of media coverage that has been afforded this case. Is that the point you are trying to make?
Arturo Hernandez: Yes. Motion to Sever Counts As noted above, defendant was charged in an amended information with 43 offenses — including 13 counts of murder, five counts of attempted murder, 14 counts of burglary, and four counts of rape — arising from 15 separate incidents involving 24 victims during a month period ending in the summer of Bradford 15 Cal. Arias 13 Cal. The People correctly point out that defendant did not ask the trial court to sever the charges into these four groups, and the trial court had no sua sponte duty to do so.
That section. Maury 30 Cal. Accordingly, defendant is limited on appeal to arguing that the trial court erred in failing to sever the charges into the groups he requested at trial.
Maurysupra30 Cal. Bradfordsupra15 Cal. Evidence linked some of the groups of offenses suggested by defendant in the trial court. For example, defendant argued that the Zazzara and Chainarong K. And both of these groups of charges were linked to the Sophie D. Ochoa 26 Cal. Defendant asserts that the joinder of the charges resulted in gross unfairness and deprived him of a fair trial.
Ochoa 19 Cal. Avia shoe prints were found at the scene of the crime and defendant later sold property taken during the crime to Felipe Solano. There was no gross unfairness and defendant was not deprived of a fair trial. But jury selection in the present case commenced on July 21,using prospective jurors summoned using the new master jury list for the fiscal year.
Further, the jury commissioner adopted a suggestion by defendant that significantly increased the representation of Hispanics on this new master list, Untitled - Richard Ramirez - Total Penetration (CDr).
Defendant failed to object to the composition of the new master list, and thus forfeited any objection to the composition of the master list actually used to select the jury in the present case. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration. Stanley 10 Cal. A list of qualified prospective jurors is obtained based upon responses to prospective juror questionnaires sent to persons on the master list.
Prospective jurors are randomly summoned from this list of qualified jurors when a court requires jurors. Raymond Weeks, a professor of sociology, was called by defendant as an expert on demographics and testified that he analyzed questionnaires of more than 10, persons who appeared for jury service in the Central Judicial District from August to mid-December of and noted that 14 percent identified themselves as Hispanic.
Based upon the census as well as data compiled by California State University, Dr. Weeks estimated that Weeks further stated that the Hispanic population had increased proportionately since and estimated that bythe percentage of the population of the Central Judicial District that were Hispanics who qualified for jury service was actually Thus, in Dr. The relative disparity — which is the absolute disparity Sanders 51 Cal.
Accordingly, Dr. Weeks also compiled statistics for the area within a mile radius from the courthouse from which prospective jurors actually were drawn and concluded that in the percentage of Hispanics within a mile radius of the Central Courthouse who were eligible for jury service was The absolute disparity between that figure The relative disparity 3. Nancy Minter, a demographics expert employed by the County of Los Angeles, testified for the prosecution and disagreed that the population of persons eligible for jury service had increased bypointing out that the growth in the Hispanic population during this period consisted primarily of noncitizens who were ineligible for jury service.
According to Dr. Minter, therefore, the absolute disparity between the 14 percent of persons who appeared for jury service and identified themselves as Hispanic and the The relative disparity 2.
Duplicate names on the DMV list are eliminated by comparing the full last name and the first four letters of the first name on the two lists. If an exact match is found, that name is removed from the DMV list.
The remaining names on the DMV list and all of the names on the registrar of voters list are combined to form the master list. Weeks also pointed out that the process of eliminating duplicate names from the two lists was inaccurate, because only the exact last name and the first four letters of the first name were compared. Because many members of the Hispanic community share common surnames and first names, Hispanics might be erroneously deleted from the DMV list.
The accuracy of determining if names on the two lists were duplicates would be increased if, in addition to the names, the birth date and address of the prospective jurors were compared. At the urging of the defense, Arce conducted an experiment on a small sample of the registrar of voters and DMV lists, which resulted in an increase from 19 to 26 percent Hispanics when the DMV list was used as the primary list.
Arce stated that in compiling the new master list for the next fiscal year, he intended to compare the entries on the registrar of voters list and the DMV list using addresses as well as names. The court held that, assuming the defense expert was correct that there was a 3. The new list was already being used to send out juror questionnaires and jurors from the new list would begin appearing in court in mid-July.
Jury selection commenced on July 21, But the procedures to which defendant objected in the trial court, and which the trial court found did not produce a constitutionally significant underrepresentation of Hispanics, were not the procedures used to select his jury. Lewis 25 Cal. Defendant objected to, and moved to quash, the master list of jurors drawn for use in the fiscal year. Defendant did not object to, or move to quash, the new master list used to select the jury in the present case and thus has forfeited this issue.
The persons so listed shall be fairly representative of the population in the area served by the court, and shall be selected upon a random basis. In counties with more than one court location, the rules shall reasonably minimize the distance traveled by jurors.
In addition, in the County of Los Angeles no juror shall be required to serve at a distance greater than 20 miles from his or her residence. Missouri U. Burgener 29 Cal. Ochoasupra26 Cal. Whether defendant satisfied the second prong by showing that Hispanics were underrepresented in the jury venire depends in part upon how the community that serves as a basis for comparison is defined.
Defendant introduced evidence that 14 percent of the persons who appeared for jury service identified themselves as Hispanic. Defendant compared that percentage to both the percentage of jury- eligible Hispanics living in the judicial district in which the trial was held The trial court selected the mile radius as the community to which to compare the percentage of Hispanics.
This was reasonable, because this was the area from which the jurors actually were summoned. Relying upon our decision in Williams v. Superior Court 49 Cal. Saunders 5 Cal. In any event, we did not hold in Williams that the area within a mile- radius area of the courthouse could not be used as the relevant community for this purpose. The defendant in Williams had argued that the relevant community was the entire county, while the People had asserted the relevant community was the judicial district.
Superior Courtsupra49 Cal. As in Williamswe need not decide in the present case whether the trial court erred in using the area within a mile radius around the courthouse as the relevant community for cross-section analysis. Defendant may not raise this issue for the first time on appeal.
Using the area within a mile radius of the courthouse as the relevant community, the trial court ruled that the absolute disparity of 3.
We agree. In People v. Burgenersupra29 Cal. Bell 49 Cal. Based upon these figures, the relative disparity in Bell was The trial court in the present case was correct that the 3. By the time jury selection in the present case commenced on July 21,the jury commissioner had begun utilizing an improved method for identifying and eliminating duplicate names from the lists drawn from the registrar of voters and the DMV.
This change increased the percentage of Hispanics on the master list to Challenge for Cause to Juror Robert D. The prospective jurors were sequestered and individually questioned concerning their views on the death penalty as then required by our decision in Hovey v. Superior Court 28 Cal. In response to questioning by defense counsel, the prospective juror agreed that he was a strong supporter of the death penalty, rating his support as eight on a scale of In his reply brief, defendant withdrew this contention.
Waidla 22 Cal. I will have to judge each case by its own merits. The trial court denied the challenge. After the jury had been selected and sworn, Prospective Juror Robert D. Defendant subsequently exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse Prospective Juror Robert D.
Defendant argues that Prospective Juror Robert D. Williams 16 Cal. Defendant in the present case exhausted his peremptory challenges to the alternate jurors, but did not express dissatisfaction with the jury ultimately selected. As we explained in People v. Bittaker 48 Cal. Accordingly, defendant has not preserved this claim for review, Untitled - Richard Ramirez - Total Penetration (CDr).
In any event, the trial court did not err in refusing to excuse for cause Prospective Juror Robert D. Griffin 33 Cal. Witt U. Griffinsupra33 Cal. Defense counsel agreed, but indicated that defendant preferred leg chains.
The prosecutor suggested that defendant again wear a leg brace rather than leg chains. Ramirez, that restraint is required in this case. This morning, however, the issue is whether or not he is going to be restrained with shackles on his legs or with a more or less invisible leg brace and which is it to be? I mean, quite frankly, gentlemen, Mr. Ramirez has been in restraints the entire period of jury selection. On January 30,the court again asked defendant whether he preferred wearing a leg brace that would not be visible to the jury, rather than leg chains.
Defendant again chose to wear the leg chains. That determination must be based solely upon the evidence presented to you. Morris 53 Cal. Stansbury 9 Cal. Even without the court having held a hearing on this issue, it appears that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that defendant be physically restrained during trial. Duran 16 Cal. When he was arrested, defendant invited the police to kill him, and asked to borrow a gun so he could kill himself.
While in jail awaiting trial, defendant used his blood to draw a pentagram on the floor and write the number Under the circumstances of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to be physically restrained during trial.
Because the record establishes a manifest need for some form of physical restraint, defendant cannot complain that a less visible form of restraint, such as a leg brace, should have been used rather than leg shackles. Defendant expressly chose to wear leg chains instead of a less visible, but more uncomfortable, leg brace, and has therefore waived any objection to that form of restraint. Guilt Phase Issues 1. Photographs of the Victims Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of eight of the victims because those photographs were irrelevant, gruesome, and highly inflammatory.
Having viewed the photographs, we conclude, for the reasons that follow, that the photographs were properly admitted into evidence. The prosecutor responded that the photographs were not unduly gruesome and were relevant to show that the body had been covered by a blanket which affected the determination of the time of deaththe nature and extent of her injuries, and the position of her clothing, which suggested a sexual assault.
It also would be useful just in general to indicate the manner or method of death. Now, quite frankly, the photographs are unpleasant. You heard the description of the wounds that she suffered and these photographs do depict those wounds. Now, you must not allow yourselves to become inflamed against the defendant or any party to this lawsuit simply because these photographs are being shown to you. This is not the purpose of these photographs. The body [has] been cleaned up and the great masses of blood have been eliminated, and they are not pretty, either one of them, but I think they are necessary for the purposes of this trial.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the challenged photographs of the murder victims depends upon two factors: 1 whether the 65 photographs were relevant, and 2 whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the probative value of each photograph outweighed its prejudicial effect. Carter 36 Cal. It is clear that the challenged photographs were relevant.
Heard 31 Cal. Crittenden 9 Cal. Taylor 2 Cal. Several of the victims had similar injuries, such as distinctive neck wounds and black eyes, which supported the conclusion that these crimes were committed by the same person.
Ewoldt 7 Cal. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of each photograph outweighed its prejudicial effect. Crittendensupra9 Cal. Coleman 46 Cal. Cox 53 Cal. As noted above, the disputed photographs were highly relevant. Although several of the photographs certainly are gruesome, especially the photograph of Maxine Zazzara with her eyes cut out, they were not unduly so.
The court carefully reviewed each photograph and, on one occasion, prevailed upon the prosecutor to withdraw a photograph that was particularly graphic and, on another occasion, to withdraw a photograph that was cumulative.
Taylorsupra2 Cal. The photographs at issue here are gruesome because the charged offenses were gruesome, but they did no more than accurately portray the shocking nature of the crimes. The jury can, and must, be shielded from depictions that sensationalize an alleged crime, or are unnecessarily gruesome, but the jury cannot be shielded from an accurate depiction of the charged crimes that does not unnecessarily play upon the emotions of the jurors.
The record reflects Untitled - Richard Ramirez - Total Penetration (CDr) the experienced trial judge was well aware of his duty to weigh the prejudicial effect of the photographs against their probative value, and carefully did so. Colemansupra46 Cal. The trial court did not err in admitting the challenged photographs of the victims.
The hair, the dress? Yes; the hair, the clothing, the glasses. No, he does not look the same. Can he stand? Hernandez, you are making an issue of it. Ramirez, would you rise, please, take your glasses off and face my clerk. Thank you. The record will so reflect, the defendant has refused to stand, take his glasses off and face my clerk so that the profile could be seen by the witness.
The weight to which such a circumstance is entitled and whether or not such conduct shows a consciousness of guilt are matters for your determination. Farnam 28 Cal. Citing our decision in People v. Hannon 19 Cal. Our decision in Hannon does not assist defendant. This requirement is satisfied in the Untitled - Richard Ramirez - Total Penetration (CDr) case. The trial court did not err in giving the challenged jury instruction. Discharge of Juror During jury deliberations at the guilt phase of the trial, the trial court discharged Juror Robert L.
Defendant contends that this violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. As you are aware I am sure, he tends to catnap during the day.
It is no disgrace. These things happen. Robert L. I also have seen him not quite as attentive as a result of his dozing off. As foreman I find it my responsibility to bring this to your attention. It now appears that several jurors have indicated that — to the foreman that he has — or has fallen asleep. Again, you know, he was nodding and he was asleep because I could hear him snoring.
I probably, 71 in an attempt not to embarrass Mr. The court finds that although I gave Mr. Williams 25 Cal. A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it discharges a juror who falls asleep during the trial.
Johnson 6 Cal. In the 72 present case, the trial judge had observed that the juror had difficulty paying attention during trial and appeared to fall asleep. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in discharging the juror. Murder of a Juror Defendant argues that he was denied his rights to due process and to trial by a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry and declare a mistrial following the murder of a juror.
On August 14,the jury was unable to begin deliberations because one of the jurors, Phyllis Singletary, failed to appear. It is something that you simply must not allow to interfere with your deliberations.
Ramirez is guilty or innocent of these charges. And I beg you to remember that in your deliberations. When the police approached the boyfriend, he killed himself. You are admonished in the strongest possible terms that your decision in this case must be based on the evidence that you have seen and heard in this courtroom and from no other source. On August 21,defendant filed a motion to voir dire the jurors regarding their reactions to the death of Juror Singletary.
A hearing was held on August 31, That is why — one of the reasons I gave them the day 74 off. Since this time they have come back and they have, in my opinion, based on my observations, resumed their usual demeanor and apparent cheerfulness and ability to get about their business, and I think that is important to remember.
This court has had nothing that would put it on notice, either by the jury or Untitled - Richard Ramirez - Total Penetration (CDr) its own observations, that would indicate that this jury is not able to continue on with its deliberations. I believe that the deliberations of the jury are very near sacred in society and to interfere with them by allowing counsel to voir dire them about how they feel about Mrs. The court denied the motion at a hearing on September 5, The jury reached its verdicts on the guilt phase of the trial on September 20, Saunderssupra5 Cal.
Davis 36 Cal. Cleveland 25 Cal. The very act of questioning deliberating jurors about the content of their deliberations could affect those deliberations. Whether a further inquiry was appropriate is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, which was in the best position to observe the jury. Ray 13 Cal. Defendant relies upon our decision in People v. Beeler 9 Cal.
Rather than replace the juror with an alternate, the court ordered the jury to resume deliberations that Tuesday morning, telling the jury the court would recess before noon so the juror could fly out of state to attend the funeral and deliberations would resume the following Monday. The jury returned a verdict of death at a. It is not clear how defendant is assisted by our decision in Beelerbut any such assistance is lessened by the fact that the circumstances in Beeler differ greatly from those in the present case.
Beelersupra9 Cal. Bolden 29 Cal. The trial court in the present case did not abuse its discretion in resuming deliberations the day after the jury learned that one of the jurors had been murdered. Sufficiency of Evidence of Burglary Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of burglary of the residence of Maria Hernandez and Dale Okazaki, the felony- murder of Okazaki based upon the commission of the burglary, and the special circumstance that the Okazaki murder was committed during the commission of a burglary.
As noted above, Hernandez testified that on March 17,about p. She fell to the ground and lay still while defendant entered the condominium.
When the door to the condominium closed behind defendant, Hernandez opened the garage door and fled. Defendant pointed his gun at her, but then ran away. Okazaki had been shot to death in the head from close range. Ireland 70 Cal. Cole 33 Cal. Kraft 23 Cal. Seaton 26 Cal. Ewoldtsupra7 Cal. With only one exception, there was evidence of the theft of property in each of the other charged crimes in which defendant entered a residence.
In several instances, surviving witnesses testified that defendant demanded money or other items of value during the crime. The prosecution presented the testimony of a person who had purchased stolen property from defendant on numerous occasions.
The defense did not 11 Because the jury was instructed to determine only whether defendant entered the residence with the specific intent to commit larceny, we do not consider whether the evidence that Okazaki was found with her blouse pulled up would have supported a finding that defendant entered the residence with intent to commit a sexual offense.
To the contrary, defendant presented testimony from a convicted burglar that she had committed burglaries with defendant. The circumstance that there was no evidence of theft during the commission of the attempted murder of Hernandez and the murder of Okazaki does not establish that defendant did not harbor the intent to steal when he entered the residence.
The jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant intended to steal, but was interrupted when Hernandez unexpectedly opened the garage door and fled.
The jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant abandoned his plan to steal in order to flee and avoid apprehension. Sufficiency of Evidence of Second Degree Murder of Yu Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of the second degree murder of Tsai-Lian Yu, asserting that the evidence is insufficient to establish malice because it does not establish that he intended to kill Yu and, if he did, that he did not act in the heat of passion, or upon a sudden quarrel, or in unreasonable self-defense.
This contention is meritless. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.
It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and 81 malignant heart. Murder that is committed with malice but is not premeditated is of the second degree. Colesupra33 Cal. Kraftsupra23 Cal. The jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant acted with malice because he intentionally shot Yu twice at close range without provocation and acted with an abandoned and malignant heart. Cumulative Error Defendant argues that the cumulative effect of errors during the guilt phase of the trial requires reversal of the judgment.
Penalty Phase Issues 1. Conflict of Interest As noted above, both the prosecution and the defense elected not to present any additional evidence at the penalty phase. Defendant does not contend on appeal that his waiver of his right to present penalty phase evidence was invalid or resulted in error, although he indicates he will raise such claims in a subsequent habeas corpus petition. As noted above anteat pp. No error appears. Anteat pp. You maggots made me sick.
Hypocrites one and all. We are all expendable for a cause, and no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world which kill in the name of God and country and for whatever else they deem appropriate. You are not expected to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil. Legions of the night,[ 13 ] night breed, repeat not the errors of night prowler and show no mercy. I will be avenged.
Lucifer dwells within us all. As also noted above anteat p. Laudermilksupra67 Cal. Defendant has not made a showing that his mental condition resulted in an inability to assist in his defense or to understand the proceedings. The trial court did not err in failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte during the penalty phase.
Massie 19 Cal. Lewissupra25 Cal. Blair 36 Cal. Defendant has presented no persuasive reason to reconsider our previous holdings. Rodrigues 8 Cal. In any Footnote continued from previous page. Schmeck 37 Cal. Box 23 Cal. Special Jury Instructions Defendant proposed 10 special jury instructions during the penalty phase. The trial court gave one of the proposed instructions, refused five of them, and defendant withdrew the remaining four. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for four of the refused instructions and two that he withdrew, in violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.
But a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative [citation] [or] merely duplicates other instructions [citation]. Boldensupra29 Cal. Mitigating Evidence Defendant also requested two special instructions regarding mitigating factors. Each juror must assign the factors present in this case whatever weight the juror finds to be appropriate. Nelson ordered Ramirez, who also faces charges in Orange County and San Francisco for two other shooting incidents, to remain in jail without bail.
The lanky, long-haired defendant is accused of having whipped Californians into a frenzy of fear by creeping through unlocked windows and sliding-glass doors of seemingly random residences--many of them in serene San Gabriel Valley communities--in the middle of the night, murdering, raping or robbing the startled victims inside.
In all, Ramirez will be tried for 14 murders, 5 attempted murders, 15 burglaries, 5 robberies, 4 rapes, 3 acts of oral copulation and 4 acts of sodomy involving attacks on 16 Los Angeles County households between June,and his arrest in East Los Angeles on Aug.
Nelson also ruled that because of special circumstances--multiple murder counts and murders committed during robberies--Ramirez could Untitled - Richard Ramirez - Total Penetration (CDr) the death penalty if convicted. The judge dismissed 18 additional felony counts at the request of the prosecution, which declined to present witnesses to buttress those charges. Many of those counts involved alleged sexual molestations of three young boys and girls whose parents requested that they not testify at the public court sessions.
Counts of robbery and burglary at the residence of an year-old Monrovia woman were dropped because the victim died before the start of the hearing.
I felt confident that we had the evidence to bind him over for trial. Halpin gave no indication that the crimes were motivated by devil worship, a recurrent theme in the Ramirez case. He predicted it could last six months, including jury selection. However, defense counsels Arturo Hernandez and Daniel Hernandez countered that the proceeding may not begin until early because they plan to file a slew of pretrial motions, including a request for a change of venue.
If possible, the lawyer said, he will seek to have the trial held in the Oakland area, although he conceded that, due to prosecution opposition, he will face an uphill battle in persuading a judge to move the case from Los Angeles County. Over the course of nine weeks, Halpin presented exhibits and a steady stream of eyewitnesses, police investigators, physicians and scientific experts to link Ramirez to the series of shootings, slashings, robberies and sexual attacks.
In all, six surviving victims identified Ramirez in court as their assailant. The victims, all women, spoke emotionally of being surprised in their bedrooms by a tall, thin attacker with poor teeth who brandished a gun. Four of the women were sexually assaulted, while the other two survived being shot in the head. Other key evidence included 84 pieces of jewelry and other stolen goods recovered from acquaintances and relatives of Ramirez in Los Angeles, the Bay Area and El Paso.
Savin Me - Nickelback - All The Right Reasons (CD, Album), Goodnight My Love - Carroll Gibbons And The Savoy Hotel Orpheans - On The Avenue - Volume 5 (CD), Part 2, People From Ibiza - Various - The Best Of Italo Dance Classics Vol. 2 (Cassette), Its A Time To Find - Bob Trebor (2) - Shes Locked In Your Eyes (CD), Gina Et Majorettes - Wondeur Brass - Ravir (Vinyl, LP, Album), Stop - Sam Brown - Stop! (CD, Album), Various - Pumping Energy 3 (CD, Album), Bullet Boys - Bullet Boys (CD, Album), Good Times - The Lambrettas - Good Times (Vinyl), Extra Portion Milch - John McAsskill - Lallmonologe (CD), Such Love - Tony Goodwin - Such Love (Vinyl, LP), Luminosa Mañana - Triana (2) - El Patio (Cassette, Album), 悲しみを許して - Akie Yoshizawa - 青い鳥を探して (CD)