People v. Capers

Decision Date08 August 2019
Docket NumberS146939
Citation251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80,7 Cal.5th 989,446 P.3d 726
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lee Samuel CAPERS, Defendant and Appellant.

Michael J. Hersek and Mary K. McComb, State Public Defenders, under appointments by the Supreme Court, and Peter R. Silten, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens, Robin Urbanski and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Chin, J.

A San Bernardino County jury found defendant Lee Samuel Capers guilty of the first degree murders of Nathaniel Young and Consuelo Patrida Young. ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)1 As relevant here, the jury found true multiple murder, robbery-murder, and burglary-murder special circumstances. (§§ 190.2, subds. (a)(3), (a)(17), & (a)(17)(G).) The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211), arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d)), and felon in possession of a dagger in a penal institution (§ 4502, subd. (a)). The jury found defendant personally used a deadly weapon—a handgun—within the meaning of section 12022.53, subd. (b). The jury separately tried and found defendant’s five prior section 211 robbery convictions to be true.

After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death.2 The court denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict and imposed a judgment of death. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. The Facts
A. Guilt Phase
1. Overview

The evidence showed that on Monday, November 9, 1998, defendant and three accomplices entered the Barstow T-shirt shop owned by married couple Nathaniel and Consuelo Young, robbed the store, shot and killed Nathaniel, and raped and beat Consuelo before killing her. They then set fire to both victims’ bodies.

Defendant cross-examined prosecution witnesses, but presented no evidence of his own.

2. Prosecution Evidence

Nathaniel and Consuelo, who had been married for seven years, opened a T-shirt store in Barstow called "T’s Galore ’N More" in 1998. Consuelo typically managed the store because Nathaniel worked on the Marine Logistics Base nearby.

Ramon Tirado lived behind the T-shirt shop and had known defendant and defendant’s half-brother Anthony Leatham for years. Leatham and two other individuals inquired about the Barstow T-shirt shop that the Youngs owned. He asked Tirado to join them in robbing the store. Tirado declined.

On Monday November 9, 1998, Nathaniel did not arrive for his scheduled shift at the base; he had never missed work without first calling. After he missed work the next day, Margaret Carter, the base’s comptroller, became concerned. She called his home and left a message on his answering machine. She then asked a superior what to do about her concern. He told her to call the Barstow Police Department and request a welfare check, which she did.

At the same time Margaret called the Barstow police, two of Nathaniel’s colleagues at the base, Loretta Becknall and Nancy Derryberry, went to the T-shirt store to check on him. They could not see inside the store because soot covered the windows. The colleagues notified Margaret that there might have been a fire at the store. Margaret again called Barstow police and also spoke to Bonnie Hulse, an investigative assistant for the Criminal Investigation Division of the Marine Corps. Margaret was told to call the Provost Marshal, who had jurisdiction over the military base. The Provost Marshal’s Office notified the Barstow Fire Department.

On Tuesday, November 10, 1998, Barstow Fire Department personnel inspected the victims’ T-shirt store for signs of a fire. Salvatore Carrao, the Barstow Fire Department Division Chief, and Fire Engineer Steve Ross noticed heavy black soot on the inside of the store windows. They checked the front door, but it did not open. They checked the back door, which was unlocked, and Carrao opened it to look inside. He immediately saw two corpses and concluded there had been a fire inside. He closed the door, called law enforcement, and secured the store.

Law enforcement soon arrived. Barstow Police Sergeant Andrew Espinoza and criminalist Randy Beasley entered the building. There they found five .45-caliber bullets and only one bullet casing. They also found a trash can that contained blood, water, and a bloody mop. Taken together, Beasley believed these items strongly suggested that someone had attempted to clean up a crime scene. Beasley found a pair of women’s panties in a toilet that had been cut straight across, from one leg hole to the other. Beasley also found a wallet and a purse next to each other. The wallet, which belonged to Nathaniel, contained no money or credit cards. Consuelo’s purse also contained a wallet, which, like Nathaniel’s held no money. One of the bodies, tentatively identified as Nathaniel’s, was stained with blood, and duct tape had been wrapped around its throat and neck. The body was partially burned.

Fire inspection specialist Rita Gay was also on the scene. She believed the fire to have been a "slow burn" that did not immediately flame up but smoldered for a long time. Gay observed soot on the furnishings and floor. She saw the two victims on the floor. The male victim lay prone and had golf clubs laying across his back. The female victim was more severely burned, such that the left side of her body had been largely consumed by fire. Gay detected the odor of gasoline in close proximity to the bodies. Gay did not examine either victim, but concluded that each had been separately set on fire.

Law enforcement personnel identified the second body as likely belonging to Consuelo. Her body had been largely consumed by the fire; much of her remains consisted of ashes and bones. They also discovered a large amount of blood and two metal golf clubs covered in blood. They noticed human hair on the golf clubs and deemed it to have come from Consuelo’s head because she had wavy hair while Nathaniel’s was more tightly curled. Catherine Wojcik, a sheriff’s department criminalist, later compared the hairs found at the crime scene with the hair of both victims. Wojcik determined that the two hairs found on the golf club were similar to samples of Consuelo’s hair, though she could not say definitively that they came from Consuelo. She determined Nathaniel was not the source of the two hairs.

Arson investigators later concluded the perpetrators had started two fires, each originating on the body of the two victims. A thick greasy substance was observed on the floor adjacent to the bodies; investigators concluded it might have been the victims’ melted body fat.

Charlene Garcia, Nathaniel’s daughter, cleaned out the T-shirt store. She informed the police that Nathaniel’s gun was the only item she found missing.

Forensic pathologist and deputy medical examiner Dr. Steven Trenkle performed autopsies on both bodies. He testified that Nathaniel had been shot at least four times, and that his body contained eight entrance and exit wounds

and had been moderately charred by fire. One bullet had cut through the brain stem and lodged in the base of the skull, and another went through the neck and severed the first cervical vertebrae underneath the skull. None of the injuries were consistent with having been struck with a metal golf club. Dr. Trenkle concluded Nathaniel died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the head, neck, and chest.

Dr. Trenkle explained that Consuelo had suffered extensive blunt force trauma and that her body had been significantly burned. As noted, much of her body had been consumed in the fire. The blunt force trauma had shattered the skull and facial bones. Dr. Trenkle concluded Consuelo died as a result of multiple blunt force head injuries

. He could not be certain whether Consuelo was alive when her body was burned.

On November 15, 1998, Barstow Police Officer John Cordero notified Barstow Police Detective Leo Griego that defendant wished to speak with Griego about the T-shirt store murders. Griego spoke with defendant, first at defendant’s residence and later at the Barstow Police Department. Defendant denied involvement in the murders, but said he knew two of the people involved.

Lisa Martin became acquainted with defendant a month after the murders. She let defendant stay at her home. During his stay, defendant mentioned four or five times how he killed a man and woman in Barstow. Defendant described how he personally shot the man, poured gasoline on both victims, and lit them on fire. He told Lisa that the woman begged and screamed for her life and that he thought it was funny. He also told her that he committed the crimes with his younger half-brother, Antonio Leatham (whom he called "Eagle"). Lisa testified that defendant kept the lighter he used to set the victims on fire and showed no remorse for killing them. Leatham also came to Lisa’s house at one point and defendant mentioned the murders in front of him. Blake Martin-Ramirez, Lisa’s 14-year-old son, testified that he heard defendant describe his role in killing the victims and taking their sports car. About a week after defendant told Lisa about the murders, she called defendant’s mother and told her to move him out of the apartment.

Griego’s investigation focused on defendant and Leatham as suspects. In January 1999, Griego questioned defendant, who was incarcerated at Chino State Prison. Defendant again denied involvement in the crimes.

In December 1999, Griego collected defendant’s biological samples so they could be compared to DNA samples obtained from evidence collected at the crime scene. All the DNA collected at the crime scene was matched to either Consuelo or Nathaniel.

Although defendant had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 cases
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...453, 453 P.3d 89 ; People v. Johnson (2019) 8 Cal.5th 475, 528, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 393, 453 P.3d 38 ; People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1017, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726 ; People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 679, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 443 P.3d 856.) III. DISPOSITION The superior cour......
  • People v. Vargas
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 13, 2020
    ...Amendments to "require a jury instruction regarding the burden of proof in capital sentencing." ( People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1015251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726.) The only burden of proof consideration made during the penalty phase concerns aggravating evidence under section 19......
  • People v. Duong
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 10, 2020
    ...reasons, we have held the jury need not be instructed on a standard of proof for mitigating evidence. ( People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1016, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726 ; People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 373, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 386, 376 P.3d 528.) The federal Constitution a......
  • People v. McDaniel
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 26, 2021
    ...( People v. Snow , supra , 30 Cal.4th at p. 126, fn. 32, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749 ; see People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1014, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726 ; People v. Rangel , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 1235, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 367 P.3d 649.) Even if we were to revisit th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...128, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 238, §9:80 Caparaz, People v. (2022) 80 Cal. App. 5th 669, 296 Cal. Rptr. 3d 187, §17:60 Capers, People v. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 989, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80, §§10:60, 20:60 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) 556 U.S. 868, 129 Sup. Ct. 2252, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1208, §19:10 Ca......
  • Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1011. Dangers other than criminal liability, such as civil penalties or liability, disgrace or embarrassment, or loss of employment, are not p......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...4-C, §10.4.2 People v. Cantor, 149 Cal. App. 4th 961, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478 (4th Dist. 2007)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(5)(a) People v. Capers, 7 Cal. 5th 989, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80, 446 P.3d 726 (Cal. 2019)—Ch. 4-C, §3.2.2(1); §3.6.3; Ch. 7, §3.2; Ch. 8, §1.1.1(2)(a)[1]; §1.1.3 People v. Capistrano, 59......
  • Attorney conduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...issues or is of limited probative value. • Argue that the evidence is equally available to the other side. CASES People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 989, 1009, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80. In a murder trial, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct when he told an attorney for a witness, who assert......
  • 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