People v. Hart

Decision Date01 June 1999
Docket NumberNo. S005970,S005970
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 21 Cal.4th 85C, 976 P.2d 683, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4099, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5319 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph William HART, Defendant and Appellant

Philip H. Pennypacker, San Jose, and Richard Phelps Stookey, San Francisco, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood, Keith I. Motley and Pamela A. Ratner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

Following the guilt phase of the trial, a jury found defendant Joseph William Hart guilty of one count of first degree murder of Diana Lynn Harper (Pen.Code., §§ 187, 189), 1 and found true the special circumstances that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of, attempted commission of, or immediate flight after commission of the crimes of rape and sodomy. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(C), (D).) The jury also found defendant guilty of rape,

Page 144

                sodomy, and oral copulation of Amy R.  (§§ 261, 286, 288a.)   At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty at death.  The trial court denied the automatic motion to modify penalty.  (§ 190.4, subd.  (e).)  Thereafter, the court imposed a sentence of death
                

This case reaches us on automatic appeal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

FACTS

The evidence at trial established that shortly before noon on March 24, 1986, the murder victim, Diana (known as Diane) Lynn Harper, and her friend, Amy R., each 15 years of age, decided to leave the Riverside County high school in which they were enrolled as students, to meet Diane's boyfriend at a local 7-Eleven store. In the parking lot of the store, Diane began conversing with a stranger, who told her that he had found a marijuana patch and needed someone to watch the road while he harvested the plants. He offered the girls $1,000 to serve as lookouts. The girls entered his vehicle, and the man drove them 30 to 40 miles, stopping once to purchase beer, and again to obtain storage bags for carrying the marijuana. At trial, Amy identified the man as defendant.

The car stopped at a dirt road in a rural area. Defendant told Amy to wait by the vehicle, and he and Diane walked up the path and out of Amy's view. Shortly thereafter, defendant returned and asked Amy to help him carry the bags. Amy went with him and saw Diane's partially clothed body lying facedown on the ground. Diane appeared to be dead or unconscious. Amy tried to run away, but defendant caught her, tore her clothes, forced her to orally copulate him, and raped and sodomized her. Amy testified at trial that defendant explained to her: "I'm really sorry I had to do this, but you know, I had a shitty day...."

Defendant informed Amy that "your friend was an asshole, she called me a few names, and I think she's dead." He also told Amy that he planned to hit Amy with a rock to render her unconscious. By misleading defendant into believing that she had been abused as a child, and promising that she would not contact the police, Amy persuaded defendant not to knock her out, and eventually he drove her back to a location near the 7-Eleven store. He gave her a quarter to phone home, and drove away. Amy immediately contacted her sister and, shortly thereafter, spoke with law enforcement officers. Later that evening, Amy directed the officers to the crime scene, where Diane's body was found. The cause of Diane's death was identified as massive cerebral contusions and hemorrhage, caused by external trauma to the head.

Law enforcement investigators recovered evidence indicating that Amy and Diane each had been sexually assaulted. A fingerprint matching that of defendant was recovered from a beer bottle found close to Diane's body. Tire impressions found in the vicinity of the murder scene were consistent with those of defendant's vehicle, which Amy also identified as the one she and Diane had entered. Shoe prints were consistent with a partially burned shoe found in a 55-gallon drum outside defendant's residence. Other physical evidence also connected defendant to the crime scene. Defendant was arrested on May 8, 1986 -- five days after the murder of his young niece, Shelah McMahan. In a police lineup, Amy was shown five individuals including defendant, and collapsed upon viewing him; immediately thereafter, she identified defendant as the man who had assaulted her. Defendant's time cards indicated that, on the day the crimes were committed, he worked until 11:30 a.m. on a construction job near the 7-Eleven store where the girls were picked up. A few days later, one of defendant's coworkers observed that defendant had a bandaged hand, and that his right arm was in a sling; the physician who treated defendant's injury testified that it was commonly known as a "boxer's fracture," because it typically is sustained by striking a closed-fist blow against a fixed or hard object.

I. GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE
A. The Prosecution's Case
1. Overview

The prosecution's theory of the case was that defendant's effort to entice the girls into

Page 145

his vehicle and drive them to a remote area was part of a premeditated plan to commit rape, and that the murder of Diane was committed in the course of perpetrating rape. To establish that theory, the prosecution presented Amy's testimony, and introduced physical and circumstantial evidence linking defendant to the crimes.

2. The Events of March 24, 1986

Amy testified that she and Diane left high school on March 24, 1986, stopping first at a nearby Der Weinerschnitzel restaurant for a soda, then at another restaurant, Don Jose's, where Diane submitted an application for employment. The girls thereafter crossed the street to an area adjacent to a 7-Eleven store to wait for Diane's boyfriend, David Starbuck.

A brown Toyota vehicle entered a nearby driveway, and Diane began conversing with its driver. Amy joined in the conversation. The driver informed the girls that "he had found a marijuana field and he had a lady that was going to go with him and she couldn't make it, and he couldn't take another day off work and ... I guess [the marijuana] wasn't his, and so he needed someone to watch the road while he went and chopped down the marijuana.... He just wanted one of us." The man informed the girls that he would pay $1,000 for the assistance he requested, adding that "we would be back in an hour."

The girls decided that if one of them were going to accompany the man, they both would do so, and so they entered his vehicle. Amy noticed an orange towel on the dashboard. Amy told Diane: "Oh, David is going to kill you for doing this." The man responded: "Will he kill you for making a thousand dollars in an hour? Why would he kill you for making a thousand dollars in an hour?"

Amy estimated that the three of them thereafter traveled about 30 or 40 miles, stopping at a Circle K store because the driver said he was thirsty. The man returned to the car with a six-pack of Budweiser beer in bottles. The three drank the beer. The man informed the girls that he would need bags to put the marijuana in "[a]nd that it wouldn't be cool to put it in a white plastic bag." He sent Amy back into the store to obtain some paper bags. The trio then drove to a Thrifty store where the girls procured more bags. Next, they traveled to a hardware store, because the man said "the marijuana was thick and that he needed to get a hatchet to chop it down with." The man entered the store for the purpose of purchasing a hatchet, emerging shortly thereafter without one, however, informing the girls that the hatchet cost $15, which was too much money for him to pay. He explained, "It's okay because I have a screwdriver in the trunk."

Diane responded: "I have this knife if you want to use that," and gave the man a small buck knife that she kept in her purse. Amy expressed her displeasure with this arrangement, and the man returned the knife to Diane. The trio then drove for awhile on a freeway, exiting near a field. The man tried to drive the vehicle into the field, but was unable to do so. He told the girls, "I know another way to get in," and they kept driving.

The car proceeded onto a dirt road near a sign that read, "80 Acres for Sale," passing a Volkswagen car shell. The vehicle stopped; the occupants emerged from the car, and the man removed the bags from the trunk. He told Amy to watch the road while he and Diane harvested the marijuana. Before departing, the man relieved himself; while he was doing so, the girls agreed to call to each other to make sure everything was all right. But after a few minutes, the man and Diane returned, the man informing the girls that the marijuana patch was not there. They returned to the car, and drove to where the dirt road stopped at a dead end. The man put the cap on his beer bottle, placed the bottle in a white plastic bag, and left the bag outside the car. The man and Diane walked up a dirt path, while Amy stayed by the vehicle. Diane had her knife with her.

Amy waited for about 15 or 20 minutes, picking at the label on her bottle of beer. She started calling Diane's name, but heard no response. She threw the bottle into a bush. She noticed a bumper sticker on the

Page 146

                man's vehicle.  It read, "Skier."   She also noticed the license plate holder, which exhibited the words, "Have a Nice Day."
                

At some point thereafter, the man returned to the vehicle, alone. He informed Amy that Diane was cooling her feet in a spring and that he needed Amy's assistance to carry down the bags. Amy followed the man up the trail. Informing her that he saw a snake, the man picked up a rock. Amy told him to give...

To continue reading

Request your trial
835 cases
  • People v. Bedolla
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 22 Octubre 2018
    ...and thus needed clarification, without first requesting such clarification at trial." ( Ibid . ; People v . Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 622, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.)Here, the asserted error is not a contradiction "regarding the elements of the crimes." ( Hillhouse , supra , 27 Cal......
  • People v. Orey
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Marzo 2021
    ...the appointed attorney would substantially impair the defendant's right to assistance of counsel. ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 603, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.)" ‘[A] Marsden hearing is not a full-blown adversarial proceeding, but an informal hearing in which the court asce......
  • People v. Kerley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 2018
    ...evidence admissible by introducing the topic selectively such as to leave a misleading impression. (E.g., People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 653, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683 ; People v. Jordan (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 349, 365–366, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 434.) A trial court's ruling on wheth......
  • People v. Henriquez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 2017
    ...27-28, 252 Cal.Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249. More recently, this court upheld the denial of a similar request in People v. Hart(1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683. This court said: "The subject of the jurors' attitudes had been examined thoroughly during the voir dire examin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Objections, motions and related procedures
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...and admonition to the jury will the reviewing court find that failure to object did not operate as a forfeiture. People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 546, 619, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 132. An objection must be joined with a request for an admonition to the jury to disregard counsel’s comments. When a......
  • Photographs, recordings and x-rays
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...discretion to admit these types of evidence, and that one type of reproduction is treated the same as another. See People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 546, 615-616, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 132 (foundation for pictures and crime scene video). The evidence should be admitted if it could assist the jur......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Rptr. 3d 907, §18:40 Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 442, 262 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629, §§9:30, 14:30 Hart, People v. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 546, 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 132, §§1:210, 13:10, 13:30, 13:40 Hartsch, People v. (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 472, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673, §8:10 Hartt v. County......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT