People v. Barnett

Decision Date04 May 1998
Docket NumberNo. S008113,S008113
Parties, 954 P.2d 384, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3314, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4582 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lee Max BARNETT, Defendant and Appellant
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Page 136

Michael A. Willemsen, Palo Alto, and Ron Parravano, Monterey, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, W. Scott Thorpe and Ruth M. Saavedra, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAXTER, Justice.

Defendant Lee Max Barnett was convicted by a jury of one count of murder (Pen.Code, § 187), 1 two counts of robbery (§ 211), one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and four counts of kidnapping (§ 207). The jury found true the special circumstances that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the crime of robbery (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i)), that the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the crime of kidnapping (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(ii)), and that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). It also found true allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the robberies and kidnappings (§ 12022.5). After the jury returned a verdict of death, the trial court denied the automatic motion to modify penalty (§ 190.4, subd. (e)). 2 Appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

We find no prejudicial error at the guilt or penalty phase of defendant's trial. We therefore affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. The Guilt Phase

The instant crimes occurred when two groups of people unexpectedly confronted each other on July 6, 1986, at a remote campsite in the Forest Ranch area of Butte County. The evidence at trial included testimony from those involved in the confrontation, including defendant, and from others who had contact with defendant the summer before the confrontation and immediately afterward.

1. The Prosecution Case

In 1985, defendant and Richard Eggett stayed at the remote campsite and dredged for gold together. In the summer of 1985, Christine Racowski was at the camp with the two men for a week. 3

Tension developed when Racowski complained about defendant's belligerent language and accused him of stealing her wallet. Toward the end of the week, defendant called Racowski a "fucking bitch" and accused her of trying to sabotage the gold dredge. When Racowski denied the accusation, defendant punched her in the face. Eggett said, "That's it, I'm pulling out." Defendant grabbed his .22-caliber rifle and pointed it at Racowski, saying, "I just might as well pump some lead in her right now." Eggett intervened and the gun fired while pointed in the air. According to Racowski, Eggett was upset with defendant's aggressive behavior, and the gold dredging partnership between Eggett and defendant ended at that time.

Late in the summer of 1985, Dave McGee went to the camp at Eggett's request to help him remove a dredge. While at the dredge site, McGee observed tension between Eggett and defendant, who was also at the camp. Defendant left after Eggett said he did not need defendant's services anymore. 4 When McGee and Eggett later returned to

Page 137

the campsite, Eggett's Jeep would not start and they had to hike out. McGee subsequently saw that the Jeep's engine had been destroyed by a screw.

A week or two later, defendant went to McGee's apartment and talked to Eggett (who had been staying with McGee) through the screen door. McGee heard defendant accuse Eggett of stealing gold from him. Eggett denied it. Defendant tore through the screen door, striking at Eggett. After Eggett chased defendant back out and off the porch, McGee saw defendant pull out a hunting knife and shake it at Eggett. Defendant fled as the police arrived, saying he would be back to kill Eggett and the others.

The following summer, in June of 1986, defendant approached Greg Kersting in Chico about the possibility of gold mining. Defendant told Kersting, who had a dredge, that he knew of a place with "lots of gold" in the Forest Ranch area. Defendant claimed that he and a partner had mined up there the year before and that the partner had "ripped him off" for "pounds of gold." After several conversations, Kersting and defendant agreed to dredge for gold together.

On the evening of July 5, 1986, defendant drove to the campsite with Kersting and his wife, Margarete Haynes, their three young children, and defendant's friend, Tom Burgess. 5 On the way to the campsite defendant told Haynes he was going to kill "Rich" (later identified as Richard Eggett). Defendant said: "I'm going to kill that fucker. I'm going to kill that sucker dog lips." Defendant later mentioned to Haynes that Eggett had stolen some gold from him.

When the group finally arrived at the campsite, a small tent and a motorcycle were there. Defendant stepped out of his truck, tied a red bandana around his head, got his gun and checked to see if anyone was there. Kersting heard defendant tell Burgess to get ready for possible trouble. Finding no one there, defendant drove his truck right through the camp, knocking over tables. 6 Haynes heard defendant call out: "Hey Rich, are you here, hey." Later, just before Haynes went to bed and also the next morning, she again heard defendant say he was going to kill that "sucker dog lips."

Prior to retiring for the night, defendant tried to turn his truck around and it got stuck in a hole. Defendant had the idea to tie some wood or logs on the truck's wheel with rope in order to get it out and turned around.

The following morning, on July 6, 1986, defendant began cutting trees to build a bridge across the creek. (See ante, fn. 6.) Defendant did not intend to stay at the campsite; he wanted to camp closer to the part of the creek where the dredging would be done. Kersting did not think the bridge was a good idea, so he walked between one and two miles, checking out the road for alternatives. Kersting returned about an hour or an hour and a half later. Soon after, he and the others heard a vehicle approach the campsite.

Defendant told Burgess to get his gun because it might be the people defendant had spoken of earlier, coming back to rob him. Defendant grabbed his .22-caliber rifle and ran up the side of a hill. Burgess stood with his loaded shotgun, waiting to see who was coming.

The approaching vehicle was Eggett's Jeep. Eggett was driving, joined by his mentally slow brother, Billy Eggett (Billy), Lloyd Curtis Hampton, and Bill Cantwell. 7 Eggett, Billy, and Hampton had initially arrived at the campsite around June 8, 1986, to dredge for gold, but had gone into town for the Fourth of July weekend and had spent the night at Cantwell's trailer. Cantwell decided to accompany them back to the campsite that morning. As they drove into the camp, they

Page 138

saw two unfamiliar vehicles. Someone ran toward them and then up the side of the hill. Believing someone might be "ripping [them] off," Hampton and Cantwell armed themselves and went into the camp on foot.

There was a tense confrontation when Eggett's group came upon defendant's group. Eggett, Hampton and Cantwell wanted to know who was in their camp and what they were doing. Kersting and Burgess tried to explain they had gotten stuck the night before and were trying to move out. Kersting showed them his family and said they had planned to camp for the weekend and do some mining. He was told they were in the wrong place, and they had to get out of there. At one point, Kersting heard Eggett and Burgess scuffling behind him, apparently over Burgess's shotgun.

Meanwhile, defendant had run to the top of the hill. After revealing his presence, defendant shouted statements to the effect of "Rich, I'm back. I've come to get you" and "Eggett, you SOB, it's taken me a year but I've got you now." Defendant pointed his rifle and told Cantwell to drop his pistol or die. 8 He directed Eggett's group to drop their weapons and get out of there. Cantwell and Hampton put down their guns after defendant fired a warning shot and "bluffed" them by pretending others were up on the hill with him. Defendant told them to put their hands on their heads.

Eggett recognized defendant, and they started arguing about the previous year. Defendant cursed Eggett for robbing him. He also accused Eggett of having "a 300 pound nigger beat the shit out of [him] and kill [his] dog" the year before. Eggett denied everything.

After Hampton and Cantwell put their weapons down, defendant came down the hill. Eggett and defendant continued to argue, with defendant yelling that Eggett was a liar, a thief and a robber. Defendant got angry as Eggett repeatedly denied his accusations. At one point defendant told Eggett: "Hold it right there. I'm going to blow your God damn head off."

As defendant approached Eggett's group, he told Burgess to shoot if anyone moved. Defendant instructed Eggett's group to "empty [their] pockets" and place everything on the hood of Eggett's Jeep. Hampton put his gun, his knife and his wallet on the hood. Cantwell placed his pistol there, 9 along with $1,100 from a payroll check he had just cashed. A vial of gold belonging to Eggett and Hampton, worth between $700 and $1,000, was placed on the hood by Eggett. After surrendering their belongings, Eggett, Cantwell and Hampton were forced at gunpoint to place their hands behind their heads. Eggett's brother Billy stayed off to the side.

Defendant stuck Cantwell's pistol in his belt. He took Cantwell's money, saying that it would just about pay him back for what Eggett had stolen and that now Eggett owed the money to Cantwell. He also took the gold vial and Hampton's knife. When he took the gold, he told...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1316 cases
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 20 Marzo 2017
    ...felony welfare fraud conviction involved a crime of moral turpitude reflecting on her honesty. (See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1128, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.) Moreover, because the prior conviction occurred in March 1998, during Kerr's relationship with defendant, it......
  • People v. Staden, A111629 (Cal. App. 2/7/2008)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 7 Febrero 2008
    ...that he acted with a subjective belief the property was abandoned property and he had a lawful claim to it. (See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1145; People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1429-1430.) As defendant acknowledges, however, in contrast to Navarro, the trial c......
  • People v. Faultry, A122829 (Cal. App. 12/21/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 21 Diciembre 2009
    ...only if the Faretta motion is "not timely for purposes of invoking [the] right [to] self-representation under Faretta." (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1105; see also id. at pp. 1104, 1106.) It is to be noted that the facts in Windham dealt with a request for self-representation ......
  • Lam v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-0829 EFB P
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 5 Abril 2012
    ...also People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 451, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.)This case is analogous to People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384. There, the trial court instructed, in pertinent part: "'The crime of murder is the unlawful killing of a hu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Character and habit
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...the witness may be asked whether he or she is aware of acts or conduct inconsistent with the testimony. People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 1044, 1170, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 121. Evidence of bad acts of the defendant are admissible to support the credibility of a witness. People v. Stern (2003)......
  • Chapter 4 - §4. Attorney-client privilege
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...on behalf of a third-party witness, assuming the defendant is not a holder, authorized person, or attorney. See People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1137-38. 2. How to invoke. (1) Generally. For a discussion of the general methods for invoking a privilege, see "How to invoke," ch. 4-C,......
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...of witnesses, and any doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence should be resolved in favor of the defendant. People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 1044, 1145, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 121. A court should not instruct a jury with an affirmative defense which is inconsistent with the defense theory......
  • Demonstrative evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...should specify the claimed dissimilarity of conditions that render the evidence misleading or prejudicial. People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 1044, 1122, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 121. To preserve a claim that the exhibit is unduly prejudicial or misleading, the objection must make it clear that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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