People v. Bradford

Decision Date23 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. S016569,S016569
Parties, 929 P.2d 544, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 520, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 899 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mark Alan BRADFORD, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Daniel E. Lungern, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey, Susan Lee Frierson and Steven D. Matthews, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BROWN, Justice.

A jury found defendant Mark Alan Bradford guilty of the first degree murder of Lynea Kokes (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) The case is before us on automatic appeal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).) For the reasons that follow, we reverse the conviction and sentence for robbery; in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

                [929 P.2d 551] 189), 1 first degree robbery (§ 211), rape (§ 261, former subd.  (2)), and sodomy (§ 286, subd.  (c)).  The jury also found that defendant had personally used a knife in the murder and robbery (§ 12022, subd.  (b)), and found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant intentionally killed Kokes for the purpose of preventing her testimony in a criminal proceeding (§ 190.2, subd.  (a)(10)).  The jury found defendant not guilty of burglary, and found not true the rape-murder, sodomy-murder, and burglary-murder special-circumstance allegations.  (§§ 459, 190.2, subd.  (a)(17).)   Defendant was sentenced to death
                
I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase

On April 18, 1988, Lynea Kokes, her husband Alexander Kokes, and their baby boy Jonathan were moving to apartment 238 of the Panorama City Lodge (Lodge). Kokes was taking over as the Lodge manager. The last time Alexander saw his wife alive, Kokes was dressing their son and preparing his breakfast to take with him to the babysitter. Kokes and Alexander agreed to meet at 6 p.m. at their old apartment, pick up their son from the babysitter, and load up their remaining belongings.

In March of 1988, defendant and Randall Clay Beerman moved into apartment 252 of the Lodge. On April 18, starting about 10 or 11 a.m., defendant and Beerman played cards and drank Black Velvet and beer.

At approximately 11 a.m., Joseph Christopher Stevens, the assistant manager of the Lodge, arrived at the Lodge to begin his last day of work. His cousin Jack and Kokes were already in the office. A number of times that afternoon defendant came into the Lodge office "leering" at Kokes.

At approximately 2 p.m., defendant told Beerman he was helping the new manager move into her apartment. Defendant described the manager as attractive, and bet Beerman money that "he'd get her in bed that day while her husband was gone." Defendant was coherent, did not slur his words, and was able to walk and take care of himself.

Between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., Stevens and Jack observed Kokes and two Lodge employees inside the Lodge office. The office had been broken into. A glass panel was broken, and certain metal was bent. After speaking to one of the Lodge employees, Stevens and Jack went to the pool and spoke to defendant. The three returned to the office, and Stevens told defendant to vacate his apartment because the rent was overdue and because he had been identified as breaking into the office. Defendant muttered that he was sorry, and said, "It wasn't me who did it." Defendant looked at Kokes with a salacious grin and said, "You are the new manager. I want you to take care of me." Defendant and Stevens argued, and defendant threatened to come behind the counter. Defendant left the office when Stevens falsely told him he had called the police.

At approximately 4:30 p.m., the movers arrived at the Lodge, and Kokes left to meet with them. Also about this time, Philip Hall, a swimming pool contractor, arrived at apartment 238 to meet with Kokes. Defendant was inside, with one or two other men, holding a cardboard box in his hands. Defendant had no trouble walking and did not appear to be under the influence of anything. Defendant apparently left the apartment. Hall and Kokes talked outside regarding the pool and spa until approximately 5 p.m.

According to defendant's statement to Detective Arnold, which was introduced at trial, defendant returned to apartment 238 after his encounter with Stevens. "Then I left the office and went up and talked to that girl to see what ... she could do about us working out a monthly rent, since she was taking over the next day.... She said she probably Defendant returned to his apartment for approximately 45 minutes, and showered to wash the blood off his hands and arms. He was thinking, "If she was gonn[a] live, you know, and ratting me off." He wanted to make sure she was dead, and returned to her apartment with a knife.

                [929 P.2d 552] could.  She'd see what she could do tomorrow."   Defendant then "grabbed her throat" with his right hand, and as she began to fall down, removed her clothes with his left hand.  As Kokes gasped for air, defendant raped and sodomized her.  He repeatedly hit her until she lost consciousness.  Defendant put his penis in the victim's vagina, then in her rectum, and then back in her vagina until he ejaculated.  Kokes was choking on her blood, gasping for air, and bleeding from her nose
                

Kokes was still gasping for air. Her eyes were closed, and her arms were not moving. She was bleeding slightly out of her nose. He rolled her over, put a belt around her neck, put his right knee in her back, pulled her head up by her hair, and slit her throat twice. Then he rolled her back over "and stabbed her a bunch of times, I don't know how many ... in the chest area." "I figured she ought to be dead after all that." He took her wallet and makeup bag, stuck the now broken pieces of the knife in his back pocket, and returned to his apartment. He was in the apartment the second time fewer than 15 minutes. He changed his clothes, washed his hands, and packed.

At 5:05 p.m., Stevens called 911 and told the police he was having trouble with a tenant. The police responded, "We'll be there." The police apparently did not respond to this call.

While awaiting the officer's arrival, Stevens went to apartment 240 to give a tenant a receipt. After doing so, Stevens observed defendant leaving his apartment. Defendant's hair was wet and he appeared as if he had just left the shower. Defendant wore only a pair of jeans and carried a towel. Stevens told defendant he had called the police and that he "better get out of here." Defendant followed Stevens, and Stevens repeated that he had called the police and that defendant had better leave. Defendant said, "I really got to get the hell out of here," turned around, and ran back to his apartment.

At approximately 6 p.m., Beerman was awakened in apartment 252 by the sound of defendant in the bathroom. Defendant was wet, had a towel around him, and was changing his clothes. He had packed his clothes and other belongings in two bags. Defendant was nervous, "pacing around the room, and in and out of the room constantly. Just couldn't sit still." His knuckles were scraped and bloody. Defendant told Beerman he had gone to the office to talk to "Joe," but that Joe was not there. The alarm went off when he went into the office, and the maid had seen defendant and accused him of trying to break in. The manager had confronted defendant, and he and Beerman had 30 minutes to pack and leave or they were going to call the police. Defendant asked Beerman to give him a ride to Fresno.

Defendant had vomited in the bathroom and used some towels to clean it up. Beerman told defendant to wash the towels in the laundry room. While defendant was in the laundry room, Beerman observed a knife handle lying on the bathroom floor. Beerman was a chef, and the handle was from one of his knives.

Defendant appeared nervous when he returned from the laundry room. Defendant said that he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Arkansas, and that he wanted to leave so as not to have to deal with the police.

Beerman called his friend Dan to see if he would assist Beerman in packing his belongings, but was unable to reach him. The apartment telephone then stopped working, and the office was closed. Beerman made several trips by car to a nearby supermarket to use the pay phone there. Defendant accompanied Beerman on some of these trips, and appeared nervous and upset, but otherwise "perfectly normal." At some point after 5 p.m., defendant called Pamela DeLong, an ex-girlfriend who lived near Fresno. Defendant did not sound to her as if he had been drinking. DeLong told defendant he could stay with her.

As it began to get dark, Beerman and defendant went to McDonald's for dinner. According to Beerman, during the several hours between the trip to McDonald's and defendant's subsequent arrest, defendant was nervous and upset, and repeatedly asked Beerman to give him a ride to Fresno. Defendant also seemed coherent, able to take care of himself, walked normally, and talked "okay."

After dinner, Beerman went to the laundry room and moved the towels from the washer to the dryer. As he did so, he heard a metallic sound on the washing machine and saw a bent knife blade. This was the blade of the knife handle Beerman had earlier seen on the bathroom floor. Beerman placed the knife on the side of the washing machine.

At approximately 5:50 p.m., Alexander Kokes arrived at the couple's old apartment. No one was present. Between 6 and 7 p.m. he retrieved their son from the babysitter and loaded the rest of the family's belongings into the truck while awaiting Kokes's arrival. Shortly after 7 p.m., he arrived at the Lodge. The office was closed. All of the doors of apartment 238 were locked, and Alexander did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
806 cases
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...the burden of demonstrating the validity of the defendant's waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1034, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544, citing Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 168, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d In considering a claim o......
  • People v. Carranco, H032412 (Cal. App. 2/24/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 2010
    ...establish an involuntary confession, it "does not itself compel a finding that a resulting confession is involuntary." (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1041.) The statement and the inducement must be causally linked. (Benson, supra, at pp. 778-779.)' (Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at ......
  • People v. Pettigrew
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 2021
    ...Flight manifestly does require, however, a purpose to avoid being observed or arrested." ’ " ( People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544.) While physical flight to evade capture or escape from custody are two obvious examples of relevant conduct, the ......
  • People v. Mendez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2019
    ...by violating the Edwards rule. But we conclude the statement was nonetheless voluntary. (See People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1039, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544 [observing that "continued interrogation after a defendant has invoked his right to counsel, or an Edwards violation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Other pretrial motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405 (defendant refused to waive rights and signed the admonition form that way) and People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005 (“No, I want my lawyer”). The California Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction in People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, wherein th......
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...term of art, citing several Supreme Court cases discussing flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt. In People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544, the Supreme Court stated: “In general, a flight instruction ‘is proper where the evidence shows that......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...have been invoked can undermine D's free will if interrogator's conduct is calculated to break D's free will); People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1039 (failure to advise D of his rights or to stop interrogation once those rights have been invoked does not inherently constitute coerc......
  • Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 1 Relevance
    • Invalid date
    ...it is not necessary that the defendant physically run from the scene or travel to a faraway haven. People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055; People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 869, overruled on other grounds, People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346. Nor is it necessary to show ......
  • 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