People v. Coffman
| Citation | 34 Cal.4th 1,96 P.3d 30,17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710 |
| Decision Date | 19 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. S011960.,S011960. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cynthia Lynn COFFMAN and James Gregory Marlow, Defendants and Appellants. |
William J. Kopeny, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Irvine; Law Office of John D. Barnett and Albert A. Newton, Orange, for Defendant and Appellant Cynthia Lynn Coffman.
Barry L. Morris, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Hayward, for Defendant and Appellant James Gregory Marlow.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood, Holly D. Wilkens and Pamela Ratner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Certiorari Denied May 31, 2005. See 125 S.Ct. 2517.
A San Bernardino County jury convicted Cynthia Lynn Coffman and James Gregory Marlow of one count of each of the following offenses: murder (Pen.Code, § 187),1 kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)), robbery (§ 211), residential burglary (§ 459) and forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)). The same jury found true as to both defendants special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed in the course of, or immediate flight from, robbery, kidnapping, sodomy and burglary within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A), (B), (D) and (G). The jury further found that Coffman and Marlow were personally armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a).) Following Marlow's waiver of a jury trial on allegations that he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), the trial court found those allegations to be true. The jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
On Friday, November 7, 1986, around 5:30 p.m., Corinna Novis cashed a check at a First Interstate Bank drive-through window near the Redlands Mall, after leaving her job at a State Farm Insurance office in Redlands. Novis, who was alone, was driving her new white Honda CRX automobile. Novis had been scheduled for a manicure at a nail salon owned by her friend Terry Davis; she never arrived for the appointment. Novis also had planned to meet friends at a pizza parlor by 7:00 that evening, but she never appeared.
That same day, Coffman and Marlow went to the Redlands Mall, where Marlow's sister, Veronica Koppers, worked in a deli restaurant. Between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m., Veronica pointed the couple out to her supervisor as they sat in the mall outside the deli. Coffman was wearing a dress; Marlow, a suit and tie.2 Later, at the time they had arranged to pick Veronica up from work, Coffman and Marlow entered the deli and handed Veronica her car keys, explaining they had a ride.
Around 7:30 p.m., Coffman and Marlow brought Novis to the residence of Richard Drinkhouse. Drinkhouse, who was recovering from injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident and having some difficulty walking, was home alone in the living room watching television when the three arrived. Marlow was wearing dress trousers; Coffman was still wearing a dress; and Novis wore jeans and a black and green top and had a suit jacket draped over her shoulders. Marlow told Drinkhouse they needed to use the bedroom, and the three walked down the hallway. The women entered the bedroom. Marlow returned to the living room and told Drinkhouse they needed to talk to the girl so they could "get her ready teller number" in order to "rob" her bank account. Drinkhouse complained about the intrusion into his house and asked Marlow if he were crazy. Marlow replied in the negative and assured Drinkhouse Drinkhouse asked Marlow to leave with the women. Marlow declined, saying he was waiting for Veronica to bring some clothing. He told Drinkhouse to stay on the couch and watch television.
Knowing Marlow had a gun and having previously observed him fight and beat another man, and also being aware of his own physical disability, Drinkhouse was afraid to leave the house. At one point, when Drinkhouse appeared to be preparing to leave, he saw Coffman, in the hallway, gesture to Marlow, who came out of the bedroom to ask where he was going. Drinkhouse then returned to his seat on the couch in front of the television.
Veronica arrived at the Drinkhouse residence 10 to 15 minutes after Coffman, Marlow and Novis. Marlow came out of the bedroom, told Veronica he "had someone [t]here" and cautioned her not to "freak out" on him. Marlow said he needed something from the car; Coffman and Veronica went outside and returned with a brown tote bag. About 10 minutes later, Coffman drove Veronica to a nearby 7-Eleven store in Novis's car, leaving Marlow in the bedroom with Novis. Drinkhouse heard Novis ask Marlow if they were going to take her home; Marlow answered, "As soon as they get back." Veronica testified that, during this period, Coffman did not appear frightened or ask her for help in escaping from Marlow. Drinkhouse likewise testified Coffman appeared to be going along willingly with what Marlow was doing.
Upon returning from the 7-Eleven store, Coffman entered the bedroom where Marlow was holding Novis prisoner and remained with them for 10 to 15 minutes. During this time, Drinkhouse heard the shower running. After the shower was turned off, Marlow emerged from the bedroom wearing pants but no shoes or shirt; he had a towel over his shoulders and appeared to be wet. He walked over to Veronica, said, "We've got the number," and started going through a purse, removing a wallet and identification. Marlow then returned to the bedroom with the purse. Veronica left the house. About five minutes later, Coffman, dressed in jeans, emerged from the bedroom, followed by Novis, handcuffed and with duct tape over her mouth, and Marlow. Novis's hair appeared to be wet. The three then left the house. Drinkhouse never saw Novis again.
Marlow and Coffman returned the following afternoon to ask if Drinkhouse wanted to buy an answering machine or knew anyone who might. When Drinkhouse responded negatively, the two left.
Novis's body was found eight days later, on November 15, in a shallow grave in a vineyard in Fontana. She was missing a fingernail on her left hand, and her shoes and one earring were gone. An earring belonging to Novis was later found in Coffman's purse. Forensic pathologist Dr. Gregory Reiber performed an autopsy on November 17. Dr. Reiber concluded that Novis had been killed between five and 10 days previously. Marks on the outside of her neck, injuries to her neck muscles and a fracture of her thyroid cartilage suggested ligature strangulation as the cause of death, but suffocation was another possible cause of death due to the presence of a large amount of soil in the back of her mouth. Marks on her wrists were consistent with handcuffs, and sperm were found in her rectum, although there was no sign of trauma to her anus.
When Novis uncharacteristically failed to appear for work on Monday, November 10, without calling or having given notice of an intended absence, her supervisor, Jean Cramer, went to Novis's apartment to check on her. Cramer noticed Novis's car was not parked there, the front door was ajar, and the bedroom was in some disarray. Cramer reported these observations to police, who found no sign of a forced entry. Terry Davis went to Novis's apartment later that day and determined Novis's answering machine and typewriter were missing.3
Around 9:30 p.m. on Friday, November 7, the night Novis apparently was killed, Veronica Koppers visited her friend Irene Cardona and tried to sell her an answering machine, later identified as the one taken from Novis's apartment. Cardona accompanied Veronica, Coffman and Marlow to the house of a friend, who agreed to trade the answering machine for a half-gram of methamphetamine. The next day, Debra Hawkins bought the answering machine that Cardona had traded. The Redlands Police Department eventually recovered the machine. Harold Brigham, the proprietor of the Sierra Jewelry and Loan in Fontana, testified that on November 8, Coffman pawned a typewriter, using Novis's identification. Victoria Rotstein, the assistant manager of a Taco Bell on Pacific Coast Highway in Laguna Beach, testified that between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. one night in early November 1986, after the restaurant had closed for the evening, a woman came to the locked door and began shaking it. When told the restaurant was closed, the woman started cursing, only to run off when Rotstein said she was going to call the police. Rotstein identified Coffman in a photo lineup and a physical lineup, but did not identify her at trial. On November 11, 1986, the Taco Bell manager found a bag near a trash receptacle behind the restaurant; inside the bag were Coffman's and Novis's drivers' licenses, Novis's checks and bank card, and various identification papers belonging to Marlow.
The day after Novis's disappearance, Marlow, Coffman and Veronica Koppers returned to Paul Koppers's home; Marlow asked him if he could get any "cold," i.e., nontraceable, license plates for the car. On the morning of November 12, Marlow and Coffman returned to Paul Koppers's residence, where they told him they had been down to "the beach," "casing out the rich people, looking for somebody to rip off." Koppers asked Marlow if he knew where Veronica was; after placing two telephone calls, Coffman learned Veronica was in police custody. On the Koppers' coffee table, Marlow saw a newspaper containing an article about Novis's disappearance with a photograph of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...tend to establish his guilt of a collateral offense for which he could still be prosecuted." ’ " (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 72, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) Further, a trial court may strike a witness's testimony if he wrongfully refuses to undergo cross-examinat......
-
People v. Johnson
...refused or modified ... if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby"]; People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 103, fn. 34, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30 [permitting defendant to raise instructional error in accomplice instructions where defendant did not obj......
-
People v. Dykes
...the question was sustained, and defendant did not answer it. No conceivable prejudice ensued. (See People v. Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 94, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30 [the prosecutor noted the defendant had not mentioned the battered woman syndrome defense until her att......
-
People v. Powell
...applies to felony-murder special-circumstance findings under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). ( People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal 4th 1, 87, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) This subdivision authorizes a special circumstance finding when the murder "was committed while the defen......
-
Objections, motions and related procedures
...taking the appeal did any of the following: • Joined the challenge for cause of a prospective juror. People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 1, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710. • Offered the inadmissible matter into evidence. Gjurich v. Fieg (1913) 164 Cal. 429, 433, 129 P. 464. • Stipulated t......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
...215, vacated on other grounds, Crampton v. Ohio (1972) 408 U.S. 941; People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 799; People v. Coffman (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 72. See "Scope of waiver," ch. 4-C, §3.4.1(1)(b). (a) Court's duty to advise. Although not prohibited from doing so, the court is not requ......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Coffey, 67 Cal. 2d 204, 60 Cal. Rptr. 457, 430 P.2d 15 (1967)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(c)[1][a] People v. Coffman and Marlow, 34 Cal. 4th 1, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710, 96 P.3d 30 (2004)—Ch. 2, §10.1.1(2)(c); §11.1.1(2)(c); Ch. 3-B, §5.4.5(1); §12.2.2(2); §12.4.3; Ch. 4-A, §7.1.1(1); C, §3.4.......
-
Order of proceedings
...the evidence tends to support the prosecution’s case-in-chief does not make it an improper rebuttal. People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 1, 69, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 710. It is proper rebuttal to introduce evidence that repeats or fortifies a part of the prosecution’s case that has b......