People v. Eubanks

Decision Date19 December 2011
Docket NumberNo. S082915.,S082915.
Citation11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15141,2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18029,53 Cal.4th 110,134 Cal.Rptr.3d 795,266 P.3d 301
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Susan Dianne EUBANKS, Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Adrianne S. Denault and Meagan J. Beale, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHIN, J.

On October 26, 1997, defendant Susan Dianne Eubanks shot and killed her four young children. When they died, the children, Brandon, Austin, Brigham, and Matthew, were, respectively, ages 14, seven, six, and four. A jury found defendant guilty of four counts of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187).1 The jury found true as to each murder the special circumstance allegation that defendant had committed multiple murders ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also found that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, former subd. (a)(1), as amended by Stats.1995, ch. 377, § 9, p. 1950; see new § 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of the murders. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied defendant's motion to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and imposed a determinate term of four years for each of the gun use enhancements. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase

At the time defendant killed her children, she had been living with them, her boyfriend Rene Dodson, and her nephew in a small home in San Marcos. Defendant and her first husband, John Armstrong, had one son, Brandon. Following her divorce from Armstrong, defendant married Eric Eubanks.2 She was pregnant at that time with Austin, the child of Larry Shoebridge, with whom she had been living. Eric fathered two of defendant's sons, Brigham and Matthew. After defendant's brother died, defendant obtained custody of her nephew.

Each son had been shot in the head by the same five-shot .38–caliber revolver; at the time of their deaths, Austin and Brigham had 0.02 micrograms of Xanax in their blood, while Brandon and Matthew had none.

In the living room, defendant had put the revolver to the temple of 14–year–old Brandon and shot him; she also shot him in the neck from a few inches away. She shot her younger sons in their bedroom. With the revolver no more than a foot from Austin's head, she shot her seven-year-old son near his left eye. With the gun inches from Brigham's head, she shot her six-year-old son twice, once above his left ear and once close to his right ear. With the gun close to the head of four-year-old Matthew, she shot him in the top of the head, leaving stippling marks on his face. She fired other bullets in the bedroom that hit a wall and a window. At some point in that bedroom, defendant opened the revolver's cylinder, removed the five expended shell casings, put them in a trash can, and reloaded the five-shot revolver.

Defendant shot herself in the abdomen with that same revolver. Her six-year-old nephew was home at the time of the shootings. He was found unharmed, in bed, with blankets pulled up to his chin.

Deputies who entered the home shortly after the shooting found five notes on defendant's bedroom floor, all in defendant's handwriting. One was to Eric. Defendant wrote, “You betrayed me. You kept a diary, and you and Rene Dodson conspired against me.” She added, “I've lost everyone I've ever loved. Now it's time for you to do the same. She said he could use any money from her worker's disability case to “bury the kids and find your rainbow. Anna May, I'm sure.” In a note to Dodson, defendant wrote he was “ the biggest liar to date that I know. Stay on crystal meth and let your 37–year–old ass move back with Mom and Dad. Get back with Pam and/or Sherri. They're your class.” It concluded, “See ya ... Ha, ha.” A third letter was to Brandon's father. It said, “I know you'll hate me forever, but I can't let [Brandon] live without his brothers, so I did what I did.” She wrote she had been “strong for 25 years, and I'm tired of all the fight and hurt.” She ended the note by complaining that Dodson “fucked me all up.” Defendant also wrote to her niece and her sister, apologizing for her actions. To the niece, defendant explained, “I know what I'm doing is going to hurt you tremendously, but I can't and have no desire to go on.” To her sister, defendant wrote she was “tired of being strong,” that “things are way out of hand.” Defendant included Matthew's birth date and hers and asked her sister to ensure that the two of them would be “in the same casket.”

Besides the evidence of the crimes themselves and the above described notes, the prosecution presented the following evidence regarding events that preceded the crimes.

The Eubanks marriage had appeared stable until defendant experienced job-related injuries that required surgery. She then began to abuse prescription medications and alcohol, she lost her job, and she and her husband Eric began a recurring pattern of separation and reconciliation. The police found more than 50 bottles of prescription medications in defendant's house after the murders.

In the fall of 1997,3 the Eubankses were going through a divorce, and Eric moved out of their South Twin Oaks home about one month before the murders. Defendant and Rene Dodson had had an intimate relationship on and off since they met in 1994. Dodson moved into defendant's house after Eric moved out. From October 13 to 19, Dodson left defendant's house, and Eric moved back in. A short time later, Eric moved out, and Dodson returned.

About 10 days before the murders, defendant purchased replacement dead bolt locks for her house. Appearing angry, she told a clerk who knew Dodson that he had broken the lock on her door, and she was buying new ones so he could not enter or get “his F'ing stuff.” Defendant told the clerk to warn Dodson that she just purchased bullets at a nearby store and one “had his name on it.” Defendant then asked one of the little boys with her, “Mommy did buy the bullets, didn't she, didn't she?” Dodson testified defendant previously had commented that, if pushed, she would kill her children and herself.

The afternoon of October 26, the day of the murders, Brandon stayed home to watch his siblings and defendant's nephew while defendant and Dodson went to a bar to watch football. The couple ordered a pitcher of beer and soon were joined by another couple. Defendant did not want the woman to sit with them due to a confrontation they had had when she had criticized defendant for talking about Dodson behind his back. Dodson decided he and defendant should go to a different bar because defendant was upset.

Defendant argued with Dodson when they left, complaining he had taken the other woman's side. She slapped Dodson a few times while he was driving; Dodson then decided to drive home. When defendant realized they were not going to another bar, she slammed the minivan into its parking gear while they were travelling 30 miles per hour on a freeway off-ramp. Defendant removed the keys from the ignition, but Dodson eventually was able to retrieve them and drive home.

Once home, the couple continued to argue in their bedroom. When Dodson said he wanted to leave and move to Hawaii, defendant slapped him, took his keys, blocked his exit from the room, and ripped out the telephones. Eventually, they calmed down and had sex. Dodson then said he was going to watch television in the living room; instead, when defendant was in another part of the house, Dodson ran to a nearby gas station, called the Sheriff's department, and asked that they send a deputy to stand by so he could retrieve his belongings and truck from defendant's house.

While defendant and Dodson were fighting, Brandon had gone to a pay telephone and called Kathy Goobs (Kathy), the mother of his best friend. He asked her to come get him and the other boys because his brothers were scared and Brandon did not want them exposed to the fighting. Kathy told Brandon to go home, reassess the situation, and to call again if he still needed her to pick them up.

A short time later, defendant called Kathy, “pleading” for Kathy to come take the boys. Kathy testified that she spoke to defendant, who, though upset and agitated, did not sound intoxicated. Defendant said she feared Dodson would call the police and that, if they came, they would take and separate the children. Kathy agreed to pick up the boys but never left to get them. Kathy had been allowing Eric to stay at her home until he found a place to live; she decided not to get the boys because she was concerned defendant no longer would allow Brandon to visit her son if defendant saw Eric at Kathy's house when defendant came to retrieve the boys because she would think Kathy was “taking sides.”

Deputy Sheriff Daniel Deese picked up Dodson at the gas station. As they approached defendant's house, defendant was carrying Dodson's tools away from his vehicle, which had two flat tires and broken headlights. When Deese told defendant to drop the tools, she became confrontational and claimed Dodson owed her money and had raped her. She went inside after Deese threatened to arrest her. While Dodson was putting his tools in the patrol car, defendant came outside, yelling, “I've been screwed by men my whole life. I've been beaten. I've been raped.”

As Dodson left with Deese, they saw Eric parked nearby. Kathy had paged Eric and advised him of the calls from defendant and Brandon, and Eric had come to check on the children. He saw the police car and was waiting for it to drive away because defendant had a restraining order against him. After learning that defendant was throwing Dodson out, Eric agreed to take...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Gomez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 29 Noviembre 2018
    ...386, 376 P.3d 528 ; People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1207, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185, 331 P.3d 1206 ; People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 154, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 795, 266 P.3d 301.) "Moreover, ‘capital and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated and therefore may be treated diff......
  • Cal. Dep't of State Hosps. At Coalinga v. C.G.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Febrero 2018
    ...that such evidence improperly was admitted. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); People v. Stevens (2015) 62 Cal.4th 325, 333; People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 142.) We find nothing in the subsequent cases addressing Sanchez issued by the California Supreme Court that abrogates the requir......
2 books & journal articles
  • 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
    ...grounds for a Franks hearing by showing that the affidavit deliberately or recklessly omitted material facts. People v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 136. Omissions are material if they make the affidavit substantially misleading and there is a substantial possibility that, had they been i......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Estrada, 234 Cal. App. 2d 136, 44 Cal. Rptr. 165, 11 A.L.R.3d 1307 (1st Dist. 1965)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(c) [2][b] People v. Eubanks, 53 Cal. 4th 110, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 795, 266 P.3d 301 (2011)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(b)[5] People v. Evans, 200 Cal. App. 4th 735, 133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323 (2d Dist.......

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