People v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 25 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S004755,S004755 |
| Citation | 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696,54 Cal.3d 787,819 P.2d 436 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 819 P.2d 436 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas Francis EDWARDS, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 26000. |
Lisa Short, Timothy J. Foley and Joseph Schlesinger, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jay M. Bloom and Louis R. Hanoian, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Diego, for plaintiff and respondent.
In this case, arising out of the 1978 death penalty law, defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of Vanessa Iberri (Vanessa) and the attempted first degree murder of Kelly Cartier (Kelly). (Pen.Code §§ 187, 664.) 1 The jury found that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of both offenses (§ 12022.5), and intentionally inflicted great bodily injury on Kelly. (§ 12022.7.) As to the murder count, the jury found true the special circumstance that defendant intentionally killed the victim while lying in wait. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15).) The first penalty trial ended in a mistrial, as the jury was unable to reach a verdict.
After the second penalty trial, the jury imposed the death penalty. The trial court then granted a new penalty trial because of error under People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782, a case decided the same day as the penalty verdict. A third penalty trial ended with the jury again imposing the death penalty. This time, the court denied defendant's motion for a new trial. It also denied the automatic motion to modify the verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and entered a judgment of death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239.) We affirm.
On Saturday, September 19, 1981, defendant, an excellent marksman, tragically shot 12-year-old Vanessa between the eyes and her 12-year-old friend, Kelly, in the head with a .22-caliber pistol while the girls were walking to a picnic lunch from a campsite in the Blue Jay campground in Orange County. Vanessa died of her wound; Kelly survived.
Defendant was an employee of the South Coast Gun Club in Santa Ana. He visited the Blue Jay campground "quite often, usually every weekend." He was seen at the gun club the morning of September 19. Around 11 a.m. that same morning, a truck that looked like defendant's red Datsun pickup entered the campground, which was about half full.
Kelly and Vanessa were spending the weekend camping at the same campground with Vanessa's mother and stepfather. Around 2 p.m., the girls left their campsite to have a picnic lunch at a site they had selected earlier that morning. As they were walking by a restroom near the entrance, Kelly saw defendant's truck drive slowly towards them. Defendant looked in their direction, and then drove past. The girls then walked out of the campground towards the picnic site.
Two other campers observed the girls leave the area. Two to three minutes later, one of the campers saw defendant drive his truck out of the campground. Shortly thereafter, while Kelly and Vanessa were walking down the road, with Vanessa in front, Kelly heard a car coming, and told Vanessa to "get on the side of the road." They both moved over. Defendant drove alongside the girls, stopped, and said, "Girls." He then fired two shots from a pistol, the first at Vanessa, the second at Kelly.
Defendant hit Vanessa in the forehead, a quarter of an inch to the right of center, just above the eyebrows. He hit Kelly in the right side of the head. Kelly fell to the ground, but saw defendant get out of the truck and run to the back. She heard something slam in the back of the truck, then saw defendant return to the truck cab and drive away.
In the meantime, other campers, including the two who had seen the girls walk out of the campground, were driving in two trucks to get some firewood. As the front truck, driven by Larry Ellis, was going over a speed bump just outside their campsite, one of the passengers, Charles Vaughn, looked to his left across a meadow. Vaughn saw the top portion of defendant's parked truck. He saw defendant run from the front of the van to the back, and then back towards the front. Vaughn then lost sight of defendant, as some trees blocked his view. None of the group heard any gunshots.
Thinking defendant might have been a poacher, Vaughn told Ellis to drive in that direction. The second truck followed. When they came around a bend in the road, Vaughn and Ellis saw defendant standing near the front of his truck. Defendant looked towards the girls on the side of the road, then over his shoulder towards the Ellis truck. Defendant then jumped into his truck and drove away at high speed. Ellis gave chase while the driver of the second truck stopped to aid the stricken girls. Defendant got away after a high-speed chase, but not before Ellis and Vaughn got the license number of the truck. It was registered to defendant.
An extensive manhunt over the next few days failed to find defendant. He was eventually arrested in the State of Maryland on September 28, 1981. Bus tickets dated from September 24 to 27 with destinations from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. were found in his motel room. Defendant's truck was later found near a bus station in Los Angeles. The camper portion of the truck contained several firearms and quantities of ammunition. Additional firearms belonging to defendant were found in a storage area of the South Coast Gun Club.
Vanessa died of a single gunshot wound to the forehead. Kelly received a grazing wound in the scalp. She required surgery to remove an accumulation of blood underneath the skull (an "epidural hematoma"), but eventually recovered.
Two .22-caliber casings were found at the scene of the shooting. Ballistics analysis established that none of the firearms found in defendant's truck or among his property at the gun club fired the fatal bullet.
A week or two before the shooting, Bobby Pamplin sold a .22-caliber Ruger handgun to defendant. It could have been the murder weapon, but was not found after the shooting. Pamplin testified that defendant was an "excellent shot." He observed defendant fire the Ruger at the firing range. Defendant "repeatedly" hit a target the size and shape of a chicken at a distance of 50 yards.
In January 1983, shortly before the guilt phase trial began, defendant told a deputy sheriff in the county jail that he was "guilty as sin."
During the guilt phase trial, the jury viewed the crime scene. The scene of the shooting was relatively isolated. It was approximately halfway between the Blue Jay campground and a neighboring campground. More than a quarter of a mile separated the spot where defendant passed the girls the first time and the spot where he shot them.
The defense did not dispute that defendant shot the two girls. It presented evidence suggesting that the shooting was not premeditated, but was a sudden act of violence caused by depression over defendant's recent divorce. Defendant did not testify.
At the third penalty trial, the one currently under review, the prosecution presented essentially the same evidence concerning the crimes as at the guilt phase. It introduced no additional evidence.
The defense presented evidence concerning defendant's marital problems and their effects on him, his good character traits, his good behavior in jail, and his apparent remorse for the crimes. Defendant did not testify.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to change venue from Orange County.
The applicable law is settled. A change of venue must be granted when the defendant shows a reasonable likelihood that, in the absence of such relief, a fair trial cannot be had. The court considers such factors as the nature and gravity of the offense, the size of the community, the status of the defendant, the popularity and prominence of the victim, and the nature and extent of the publicity. On appeal after a judgment following the denial of a change of venue, the defendant must show both that the court erred in denying the change of venue motion, i.e., that at the time of the motion it was reasonably likely that a fair trial could not be had, and that the error was prejudicial, i.e., that it was reasonably likely that a fair trial was not in fact had. The trial court's essentially factual determinations as to these factors will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. We independently review the trial court's ultimate determination of the reasonable likelihood of an unfair trial. (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 805-806, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865; People v. Bonin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 659, 672-673, 676-677, 250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217.) 2
As the trial court recognized, the gravity of the offense is most serious and if considered alone, would support a change of venue. Review of the other factors, however, compels the conclusion that a change of venue was properly denied.
At the time of the guilt trial in early 1983, Orange County was California's second largest county in population. (People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 806, fn. 4, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865.) Defendant claims Orange County is too "White," too "Republican," and too prosperous to afford a fair trial, but presents no credible supporting evidence. The size of the county weighed heavily against a change of venue. (People v. Bonin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 677, 250 Cal.Rptr. 687, 758 P.2d 1217; People v. Harris (1981) 28 Cal.3d 935, 949, 171 Cal.Rptr. 679, 623 P.2d 240.)
Defendant was a resident of Orange County at the time of the crime. The media generally identified him as a resident of Costa Mesa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dykes
...(People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1056-1057, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775; cf. People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835-836, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436.) It is difficult to discern the exact nature of defendant's claim. He argues that victim-impact evidence nece......
-
People v. Miles
...and federal law and accordingly calls for a wholesale reconsideration of existing precedent beginning with People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436. We recently rejected the same statutory argument in People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1366–1368, 192 Ca......
-
People v. Hardy
...its probative value. Its rulings will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion." ( People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 817, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436.)Here, the prosecution never argued that Sigler did not yell a racial slur; indeed, she said during her openi......
-
People v. Brooks
...highlighting it, would prevent the jury from properly assessing defendant's culpability and character.People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436 cautioned trial courts deciding whether and to what extent to allow victim impact evidence and argument at the penalt......
-
Table of cases
...Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620, §10:70 Edwards, People v. (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 787, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696, §9:140 Edwards, People v. (2022) 76 Cal. App. 5th 523, 291 Cal. Rptr. 3d 600, §7:10 Edwards, People v. (2017) 11 Cal. App.......
-
Hearsay
...emotion or physical sensation. HEARSAY 9-41 Hearsay §9:140 The statement must be trustworthy. Evid. Code §1252; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 787, 818-820, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696. Evidence Code Section 1251 is similar in language to Evid. Code §1250 with two exceptions [ Crail v. Blakely......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478; Bradford, 923 F.3d at 618-19; People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391, 432; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 816; Mickey, 54 Cal.3d at 651. (c) Sobriety inquiries. An interrogation does not occur when police pose questions as part of a routine sobriety ......
-
Table of Cases null
...Ch. 4-A, §4.1.4(2)(a) People v. Edwards, 17 Cal. App. 4th 1248, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 3 (2d Dist. 1993)—Ch. 2, §11.2.4(3) People v. Edwards, 54 Cal. 3d 787, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696, 819 P.2d 436 (1991)—Ch. 3-A, §4.3.3; Ch. 5-C, §2.1.2(2)(b) People v. Edwards, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1358, 248 Cal. Rptr. 53......