People v. Griffin
Decision Date | 19 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. S029174.,S029174. |
Citation | 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 743,93 P.3d 344,33 Cal.4th 536 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald GRIFFIN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Lynne S. Coffin, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Donald J. Ayoob, Assistant State Public Defender, Mary K. McComb and Manuel J. Baglanis, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, John G. McLean and George M. Hendrickson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Donald Griffin appeals from a judgment of the Fresno County Superior Court imposing a sentence of death (Pen.Code, § 190 et seq.).1 His appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)
At the guilt phase of his initial trial, a jury found defendant guilty of the murder of Janice Kelly Wilson (Kelly), his 12-year-old stepdaughter, finding that he committed the murder under the special circumstances of felony-murder rape, felony-murder sodomy, and felony-murder lewd conduct, and also that he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon, a knife. The jury also found defendant guilty of rape, sodomy, and lewd or lascivious conduct against Kelly. At the penalty phase, the jury fixed the punishment for the murder at death. The trial court rendered judgment, sentencing defendant to death for the murder, and staying imposition of sentence as to the rape, sodomy, and lewd conduct offenses.
In People v. Griffin (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1011, 251 Cal.Rptr. 643, 761 P.2d 103 (Griffin I), we affirmed the judgment as to defendant's guilt of these offenses and the related special-circumstance and personal-use findings, but reversed the sentence of death because the trial court committed error under People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430, by giving the so-called Briggs Instruction. That instruction informed the jury that the Governor could commute a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole to a lesser sentence that would include the possibility of parole, but did not inform the jury that the Governor similarly could commute a sentence of death as well. We remanded defendant's case for a new trial on the issue of punishment.
On remand, upon retrial of the penalty phase, a new jury again fixed defendant's punishment at death. The trial court rendered judgment, again sentencing defendant to death for the murder and staying imposition of sentence as to the rape, sodomy, and lewd conduct offenses.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.
In Griffin I, we summarized the evidence presented at the guilt phase of the initial trial as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Dykes
...(1995) 11 Cal.4th 1171, 1205, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 800, 906 P.2d 1068, disapproved on another ground in People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 555, fn. 5, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 93 P.3d 344.) 2. Admission of victim-impact Defendant contends "almost all" of the victim-impact evidence introduced at ......
-
People v. Brooks
...(Ibid . ; accord, People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965, 991, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789, 155 P.3d 205 ; see People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 579–580, fn. 19, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 93 P.3d 344 [statement made to a friend at school does not constitute " ‘testimonial hearsay’ " under Crawford ].......
-
Dixon v. Rackley
...v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 202; People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 170-171, disapproved on another ground in People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 555, fn. 5; People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1282.) The trial court here was in the best position to observe E.B., and its a......
-
People v. McDaniel
...did not rest on any considered analysis of our state constitutional or statutory guarantee. (See, e.g., People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 598, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 93 P.3d 344 [summarily rejecting challenges under "the Sixth Amendment's jury trial clause, the Eighth Amendment's cruel ......
-
Table of cases
...Rptr. 213, §22:100 Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106, §§10:60, 21:90 Griffin, People v. (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 536, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743, §2:180 Griffin, People v. (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 459, 58 Cal. Rptr. 107, §11:10 Grimes, People v. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 698,......
-
Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
...two-year period and had no medical training or training in pathology or serology), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536; People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 851-53 (criminalist qualified to give opinion on source of various bloodstains was not qualified to......
-
Jury selection
...before the alternates are sworn, you may ask the court to reopen jury selection as to the regular panel. See People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 536, 562-566, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743 (discussing former rule that jury selection is not complete until the alternate jurors are sworn). Any object......
-
Evidence
...People v. Turner , 878 P.2d 521, 550 (Cal. 1994), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1068 (1995), reversed on other grounds by People v. Griffin , 33 Cal. 4th 536, 555 n.5 (Cal. 2004). A witness’ testimony regarding the location of robberies and murders , and inquiries into why and how defendant shot ......