People v. Gray
| Decision Date | 24 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C062668.,C062668. |
| Citation | 194 Cal.App.4th 1133,124 Cal.Rptr.3d 625 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mark Wayne GRAY, Defendant and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman, R. Todd Marshall and Larenda Delaini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Mark Wayne Gray met his wife S. when she was only 17 years old. The couple had three children, but the marriage fell apart and she moved out of their house. Rather than get on with his life, defendant turned hers into a living hell. He embarked on a course of conduct calculated to terrify her, drive her crazy, or both. As a result of misdeeds committed both before and after the separation, defendant was convicted by a jury of the felonies of spousal rape of unconscious or sleeping victim (Pen.Code, § 262, subd. (a)(3)), genital penetration with a foreign object ( id.,§ 289, subd. (d)) through use of a controlled substance ( id., § 12022.75), four counts of first degree residential burglary ( id., § 459), attempted first degree residential burglary ( id., §§ 664, 459), sexual battery ( id., § 243.4, subd. (e)(1)), stalking ( id., § 646.9, subd. (a)) and attempted stalking ( id., §§ 664/646.9, subd. (b)), as well as a host of misdemeanors. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 years and two months in state prison.
Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. He also challenges several other convictions on procedural grounds. In the published parts of this opinion, we reject two of his arguments: (1) that the trial court committed reversible error in ordering disclosure to the prosecutor of documents defendant brought with him to the witness stand, over his objection that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege; and (2) that the enhancement for administering a controlled substance for the purpose of committing sexual penetration (Pen.Code, § 12022.75) must be vacated because the prosecution introduced no evidence that “Ambien” was a controlled substance.
As for the rest of defendant's claims, we find no reversible trial error, but shall strike two of the misdemeanor convictions, modify the sentence in minor respects, and otherwise affirm the judgment.
S. and defendant met when she was 17 years old and he was 30. They dated, moved in together, got married in 1999, and had three children.
During their marriage defendant began to videotape them having sex, which made S. uncomfortable. A couple of times S. discovered that he had been secretly videotaping her. However, when she confronted him with it, he became angry.
In the fall of 2006, S. began to feel the marriage was not working out. In early 2007, she enrolled in some college classes, which made defendant unhappy.
One night in August 2007, an incident occurred where, after S. rebuffed defendant's sexual advances, he pinned her down on the bed so she could not breathe and assaulted her sexually. She fled the house, stayed at a friend's place and eventually moved into her own residence.1
Once S. moved into her own house in September 2007, she told defendant he was not allowed inside. From then on, unusual and suspicious events began to occur.
The tires in S.'s minivan kept going flat, despite the efforts of the car shop to reinflate them. In November, roofing nails were found in the center of her tires, and in December, two new tires that she had received for her birthday were found slashed.
Various small items that S. kept in her minivan turned up missing, such as work shirts, CD's (compact discs), a phone charger and various items of personal clothing. Lights inside the van that she was sure she had turned off were turned back on.
Unusual occurrences also began happening around S.'s house. The electrical circuit breaker box was turned off mysteriously. Several articles of clothing were found with slits in them. Decorative pumpkins put outside the house repeatedly disappeared. On Thanksgiving Day 2007, the main water valve to the house was turned off. Single shoes of S.'s were missing and numerous items of personal clothing had disappeared. All of the thefts were reported to the police.
After the pumpkins kept disappearing, S. bought a security camera and installed it outside her home. The camera caught a videotape of defendant near her home at a time when she and the children were away. In December 2007, a PC-based video surveillance system S. had purchased was stolen out of her garage.
A private investigator hired by S. recorded two surveillance videos showing defendant entering her locked minivan and removing items from it, including panties, a purse and several CD's. One night in April 2008, S. heard a loud noise upstairs and discovered that a window had been broken. In June 2008, S. suspected that someone had placed spyware on her cell phone. Police subsequently recovered from defendant's house video footage indicating that he had scrolled through S.'s contacts on her cell phone with a gloved hand.
These events left S. shaken and afraid. On September 12, 2008, she obtained a restraining order against defendant.
On September 18, 2008, police obtained an arrest warrant for defendant and a search warrant for his house and car. When the officer read charges of theft or burglary, defendant responded that any items he took were under the belief they were his property.
In the trunk of defendant's car, police found S.'s CD's that had been reported stolen. Under the floor mat, they found a duplicate key to S.'s minivan.
Inside defendant's house, police found a set of keys to S.'s house before she had the locks changed. They also found numerous items S. had reported stolen from her home, including the single shoes that were taken from S.'s closet and her cell phone charger. During the same search, police discovered a VHS tape showing defendant having sex with S. while she was sleeping or unconscious. Numerous other videotapes taken by a hidden camera were discovered, some containing footage showing S. in various states of undress, and another showing defendant digitally penetrating her vagina while she was asleep.2 Officers also found surreptitiously filmed videotapes depicting defendant's next door neighbors engaging in sexual activity.
Defendant's criminal misconduct did not end with his arrest. Defendant used his mother as an intermediary to tell S. that he would agree to whatever child custody arrangement she wanted if she would drop the charges against him. A secretly taped jailhouse conversation indicated defendant and his mother collaborated in trying to avoid a subpoena so that she would not have to testify at trial.
Defendant's former cellmate, Courtney Jones Botta, testified that defendant offered him money to commit acts of petty theft and vandalism against S.'s property. Defendant wanted these acts done while he was in custody, so as to make it appear he was not the perpetrator of the charged crimes.
Defendant took the stand in his own defense. He testified that he and his wife had a “great sex life.” He admitted he used a camera to videotape S. in states of undress and recorded footage of them having sex, but insisted that “90 percent of the time” S. knew about it and did not object.
Defendant stated that he started secretly videotaping S. in June 2007 after their relationship became rocky, because she started acting “suspicious” and “paranoid,” like she was hiding something from him. He also believed she was spending time with other men and taking some of his things.
Defendant explained the digital penetration video by stating that he had been massaging his wife to see if he could motivate her to have sex, and was shocked to realize that she had fallen asleep. He videotaped the episode to prove to her what a sound sleeper she was. He denied giving her narcotics or sleep medication. He claimed that he took the Ambien himself to help him fall asleep.
Explaining the video that formed the basis of the spousal rape by intoxication charge, defendant claimed that he filmed S. asleep, paused the video to obtain her consent to have sex with him, and then restarted the filming. He insisted his wife was awake during the entire act of intercourse.
Defendant denied ever breaking into S.'s house, stealing items of personal property, or committing acts of vandalism directed at her. He admitted taking things out of her van, but claimed he was exercising his community property rights. He also admitted videotaping his neighbors having sex on several occasions. He claimed that they were having sex in their backyard, and was concerned that his children would see them. The purpose of the taping was to gather evidence for the police.
The table below summarizes the jury verdict on defendant's felony convictions and the court's sentence on each one.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Brenda M. Cash
...and was concerned that his children would see them. The purpose of the taping was to gather evidence for the police.People v. Gray, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 625, 626-29 (2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (May 19, 2011). After the California Court of Appeal affirmed his judgment of conviction, pe......
-
Gray v. Brenda M. Cash
...and wasconcerned that his children would see them. The purpose of the taping was to gather evidence for the police.People v. Gray, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 625, 626-29 (2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (May 19, 2011). After the California Court of Appeal affirmed his judgment of conviction, pet......