People v. Gates

Decision Date15 October 1987
Citation43 Cal.3d 1168,240 Cal.Rptr. 666,743 P.2d 301
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 743 P.2d 301 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Oscar GATES, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 22263.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald Smetana, Ronald E. Niver, Karl S. Mayer and Eugene W. Kaster, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Judd C. Iversen, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.

PANELLI, Associate Justice.

Defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of Lonnie Stevenson (Pen.Code, § 187) 1 with findings of use of a firearm and being on parole at the time of the offense (§§ 12022.5, 1203.08); assault with a deadly weapon on Maurice Stevenson with findings of use of a firearm and infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 245, 12022.5, 12022.7); robbery of Lonnie Stevenson with findings of use of a firearm, infliction of great bodily injury, and being on parole (§§ 211, 12022.5, 12022.7, 1203.08); robbery of Maurice Stevenson with findings of use of a firearm, great bodily injury and being on parole (§§ 211, 12022.5, 12022.7, 1203.08); possession of a concealable firearm by an exfelon (§ 12021); and escape with force and violence (§ 4532, subd. (b)). A special circumstance allegation under the 1978 death penalty law was found true: that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i).) The jury fixed the punishment at death; the appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).)

For reasons set forth hereafter, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. GUILT PHASE
A. FACTS
1. Prosecution Case.

On December 10, 1979, defendant shot Maurice Stevenson and Lonnie Stevenson, Maurice's uncle. Lonnie died, and Maurice survived. There was no question that defendant did the shooting; there was a question, however, as to how and why the shooting occurred.

Maurice Stevenson was the principal prosecution witness. He testified as follows: He and his uncle Lonnie were waxing his car in front of his grandfather's house in Oakland on December 10, 1979, when defendant appeared about 3:30 p.m., holding a gun with the trigger cocked. Defendant said something like, "I got you," and told them to go to the side of the house. He ordered them to put their hands on the wall and to empty their pockets and take off their jewelry. Maurice had two diamond rings, a diamond watch and $200, all of which he dropped on the ground behind him. Lonnie also took off a ring and dropped it behind him. Defendant then patted them down and asked Maurice where his father James Stevenson was. When Maurice said he did not know, defendant told them he was going to kill them. He shot Lonnie, who yelled and started running toward the back of the house, screaming, "My daddy, my daddy. Fred is out here shooting us." Defendant then shot Maurice. As Maurice was falling, he saw defendant pick up the jewelry and money and run toward the street. Maurice crawled into the house where he saw Lonnie on the floor, bleeding and unconscious. He told his grandfather that "Fred" had shot them. 2

The police arrived two to three minutes later. Maurice talked to them while they waited 20 to 25 minutes for the ambulance. He also talked to the police at the hospital after his surgery and gave a short tape-recorded statement. 3

Maurice identified as his a ring found by the police on the ground near the house. He said he had known defendant for about a year and that defendant had lived with him, his uncle and his father for a few months. Maurice had not seen defendant for six or seven months before the shooting and had had no disagreements with defendant. His uncle had had an argument with defendant, but Maurice had not been present. Maurice said he and his family had gotten along pretty well with defendant and that this incident came as a complete surprise. At other points, however, Maurice referred to threats by defendant against his family.

On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Maurice a number of questions relating to the existence of a forgery ring headed by Maurice's father and defendant's involvement in it. Maurice was also asked whether there had been a disagreement about defendant's "cut" and whether defendant claimed money was owed him. Maurice consistently denied knowledge of such activities or claims.

Jimmy Stevenson, Maurice's grandfather, said that he was working in his backyard on the afternoon of December 10. Between 3 and 4 p.m., he heard some loud noises and his son Lonnie yell, "Daddy, Fred done shot us." He ran into the house and got his .22 rifle, but by the time he got to the front, defendant was gone, and only defendant's hat remained about 25 to 30 feet from the house.

Some time after the shooting, defendant called Jimmy and said he had killed Lonnie and shot Maurice. He further indicated he was going to go to Los Angeles and start killing members of another family and upon his return would finish killing the rest of the Stevensons.

Raymond Lewis, a neighbor of Jimmy Stevenson, was working on his car in front of his house on December 10. He saw Maurice and Lonnie working on a car and then noticed they were gone. He heard three gunshots and then saw a Black male of stocky build, about five feet, seven or eight inches tall, wearing blue jeans, a white jacket and a knit hat, run from the area of the Stevenson driveway. He saw the man put a gun in his pocket.

Another neighbor, Eugene Williams, was bringing his children home from school when he saw a stocky Black male wearing an off-white or beige hat pull a gun on Lonnie and Maurice Stevenson as they were wiping the car. He saw them go to the front of the car while the man patted them like he was getting ready to frisk them. 4 The man then walked them over to the side of the house and started frisking them and having them take off their watches, rings and other things. Both Lonnie and Maurice had their hands up in the air and their backs to the man, whom Williams identified as defendant. Williams went inside his house and called the police. While he was on the phone he heard three to four shots.

Officer Moschetti arrived at the Stevenson house within five to eight minutes after he heard the police broadcast at 4 p.m. Maurice told him that Fred Gates had shot them; that Fred had approached, drawn a gun, herded him and Lonnie over to the side of the house where he frisked them, robbed them, and shot them in the back.

Police found a palm print on the wall at the side of the Stevenson house that was made by Maurice Stevenson. They also found a man's ring and a .38 caliber projectile with blood on it in the driveway.

The autopsy of Lonnie revealed that he had been shot in the back. The bullet passed all the way through his body. The angle of the bullet wound was consistent with his having been bent slightly forward when shot.

Defendant was arrested in Vallejo on December 29, 1979. He told the officers his name was Alfred Filds and produced identification in that name. He was armed with a gun at the time of his arrest. This gun was found to be the one used to kill Lonnie Stevenson.

2. Defense Case.

Defendant testified extensively concerning the Stevenson forgery ring, his involvement in it, and the dispute over whether he was owed a "cut" from the forgery proceeds:

Defendant met the Stevensons through his friend Donald "Duck" Taylor. In January 1979, defendant moved into an apartment on Hillside in Oakland with James Stevenson, Maurice Stevenson, Lonnie Stevenson and Duck Taylor. (James was Lonnie's brother and Maurice's father.) He joined the forgery ring which James and Duck had put together. They would file fictitious business statements, open business accounts in banks, deposit stolen checks into them, and then withdraw the money. Other schemes included false back-dating of bank passbooks and the use of bank insiders to enter deposits for accounts on the bank's computers and then erase them once the money had been withdrawn from the account.

James Stevenson and Duck Taylor were the brains of the operation. The core members of the so-called Stevenson forgery ring were James, Lonnie and Maurice Stevenson, Duck Taylor, Melvin Hines and defendant. Maurice and Lonnie were "drivers," taking "walkers" from bank to bank to cash checks. Melvin Hines was also a "driver" and occasionally would go into banks himself. Defendant's role was to stay at the apartment to receive stolen checks from people and to act as a contact person.

Each participant received a "cut." James and Duck got the largest cut. The person who brought in the stolen check would get 10 to 15 percent, the driver 10 percent, and the walkers 15 to 20 percent. Defendant, Melvin Hines and Lonnie would then get their cuts, which were generally between $200 to $300 per transaction. There was also a plan for each core member in turn to receive a big cut of about $25,000. Defendant was to get his big cut after Maurice and Lonnie got theirs. This was to have been around September of 1979.

In the spring, defendant moved out of the Hillside apartment and into an apartment on Fairmount with Duck Taylor and his girlfriend. In September 1979 defendant discovered he was not receiving his share of the money distribution. He, James, Lonnie and Melvin Hines had a heated discussion about it at the Fairmount apartment. The next morning defendant encountered James, Duck, Maurice and Melvin in front of the apartment building. James had a gun. James said, "Hey man, the money thing ... that is dead." Defendant kept talking loudly to attract attention. The manager told them to break it up, and others looked out their windows. Defendant kept backing away and then zig-zagged between cars. James and Maurice began shooting; defendant was hit in the leg, fell, got up and eventually made it to a friend's apartment. The friend...

To continue reading

Request your trial
175 cases
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1988
    ...discloses the evidence was argued under subdivision (b), not subdivision (c). As we recently held in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301, the People may properly present evidence showing the circumstances of the prior violent criminal Defendant next ......
  • People v. Hovey
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1988
    ...We conclude that the circumstances surrounding defendant's subsequent offense were properly admitted. (See People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301; People v. Harris, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 68, 201 Cal.Rptr. 782, 679 P.2d 433; People v. Murtishaw, supra, ......
  • People v. Melton
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1988
    ...testimony by the victims about the details of those crimes. We rejected an identical claim in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, at page 1203, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301. There we explained that "[w]hen dealing with violent conduct it is not the fact of conviction which is probativ......
  • People v. Schultz
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2020
    ...this testimony, the prosecution was entitled to explore the issue on cross-examination and rebuttal. (See People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1211, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301, disapproved on another ground in People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 458–459, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 23......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...485, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 624, §17:160 Garza, People v. (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 148, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 11, §10:160 Gates, People v. (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1168, 240 Cal. Rptr. 666, §4:160 Gatson, People v. (1998) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 729, §9:130 Gatton v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.......
  • Order of proceedings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...consider any explanation offered for the delay, since circumstances may make earlier presentation impossible. People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1168, 1184, 240 Cal. Rptr. 666. Evidence that is otherwise proper rebuttal is not inadmissible on the ground that the prosecutor could have introdu......

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