People v. Hall

Decision Date18 May 2018
Docket NumberA147923
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gregory HALL, Defendant and Appellant.

Alan Siraco, under appointment of the Court of Appeal under the First District Appellate Project, Independent Case System, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorneys General, Catherine A. Rivlin and Sara Turner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Dondero, J.

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder with personal use of a knife. ( Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion and violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by allowing his impeachment with the conduct underlying a misdemeanor conviction for possession of a weapon, in which he threatened a person with a large knife. We agree, and reverse the judgment of conviction.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In September 2013, the Alameda County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Gregory Hall with the first degree murder of Michael Bradley on or about June 14, 2012, a serious and violent felony. The information further alleged that defendant personally used a knife in the commission of the crime, that he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions, and that he was subject to the three strikes law. ( §§ 187, subd. (a) ; 12022, subd. (b)(1); 667.5, subd. (c); 1192.7, subd. (c)(23); 667, subd. (a)(1); 667, subd. (e)(2)/1170.12, subd. (c)(2).)

In December 2015, a jury found defendant guilty of murder and found true the personal use of a knife allegation. After the jury was excused, defendant admitted the prior convictions.

In February 2016, the court struck the use allegation in the interests of justice (§ 1385) and sentenced defendant to 60 years to life in prison.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Prosecution's Case
The Discovery of Michael Bradley's Body

On June 14, 2012, Diana Wilson, Michael Bradley's next door neighbor on Market Street in Oakland, noticed that Bradley's door was open and several of his tools were outside, even though it was raining. She had not seen Bradley for a few days and was concerned. Wilson, her daughter Franceska Nelson, her cousin Terry Jones, and Eugene Fritch went to check on Bradley. Jones discovered Bradley's decomposing body and called the police.

The Crime Scene

When Oakland Police Sergeant Leonel Sanchez arrived at the scene, there was loud music playing inside the house and Bradley's body was lying on the bedroom floor with his feet sticking out into the hallway. There were masticated bits of almond on Bradley's neck and throat, and scattered about the body. At first, Sanchez thought Bradley had choked to death on an almond. However, Sanchez soon discovered Bradley had been stabbed several times. There was an electrical cord on the floor, and a blood trail from the bedroom to the kitchen. There was no evidence of a forced entry.

Sanchez interviewed several neighbors. Bradley rented the main floor of the house in which he was living, and German Aviar lived on the ground floor. Bradley's landlord, Hector Orozco, told Sanchez the last time he saw Bradley was Sunday, June 10, 2012.

Wilson owned the house next door and lived there with her daughter and two tenants, her cousin Terry Jones and Eugene Fritch, who rented separate basement rooms. Defendant had previously rented the room in which Jones was then living, but he moved out two months before Bradley's death.

According to Nelson, Bradley and defendant were friends who occasionally drank beer together. Defendant also helped Bradley with yardwork.

Sanchez searched Bradley's back yard and the back yards of several of Bradley's neighbors. He located a sleeveless vest near a fence between a neighbor's yard and a large apartment complex. The neighbor said he had noticed the jacket in his yard earlier and had thrown it over the fence because it did not belong to him. There was dried blood on the outside of the jacket and a black beanie with two cut-out eye holes and an orange sock with dried blood on it inside the vest pockets.

Sanchez searched Bradley's house and collected an empty beer can from the premises. Sanchez submitted the can, electrical cord, clothing, and fingernail clippings from Bradley's body to the crime lab for DNA examination.

The Autopsy Findings

Dr. Thomas Beaver, the former chief forensic pathologist for Alameda County, performed the autopsy on Bradley. Dr. Beaver had retired and relocated to Florida prior to trial. Dr. Michael Ferenc, the current chief forensic pathologist for Alameda County, testified as an expert on autopsies and cause of death, based on Dr. Beaver's report. Bradley was 67 years old. A ligature mark on the neck was consistent with the cord found near the body. Also, cartilage in Bradley's larynx was broken

.

Bradley had suffered 16 stab wounds

. The largest wound was four inches long and could have been caused by a blade with a maximum width of three and one-half to four and one-half inches and a square edge. At least six of the stab wounds penetrated Bradley's left chest wall. Based on Dr. Beaver's observations, Dr. Ferenc opined that the cause of death was multiple stab wounds to the chest involving the heart and lungs.

DNA Evidence

The DNA from the collar of the vest was consistent with defendant's DNA. A bloodstain on the front of the jacket was consistent with Bradley's DNA. Biological matter on the underside of the black beanie near the eye holes matched defendant's DNA. Blood on the sock matched Bradley's DNA; defendant was a minor contributor of DNA on the sock. The DNA on the electrical cord matched Bradley's DNA. Minor alleles on the cord were consistent with defendant's DNA. Bradley's DNA only was on his fingernails.

Defendant's Statement to Police

Defendant was arrested, Mirandized,2 and interviewed on February 14, 2013. A recording of the interview was played for the jury.

Defendant said he was on SSI and lived on $800 a month, some of which he spent on alcohol and some of which he used to pay for motels on occasion to get off the streets. He was using the showers at City Team shelter.

Asked if he used drugs in the past, defendant said no. Asked later what his drug of choice was "back then," defendant admitted it was methamphetamine. Defendant explained that he worked "for a long time with bikers" at an R.V. dealership in San Leandro and they "used to ... get me high on that just 'cause they know I be throwin' down every day when they be sittin' there watchin'...." By "throwin' down" he meant "doin' most [of the] work"; he did not mean fighting.

Defendant said he was not familiar with the area around 33rd and Market Streets and, when shown a picture of Michael Bradley, said he had never seen Bradley before. Shown a picture Wilson's house on Market Street, defendant admitted that about a year and a half earlier, he rented a room from "Diane" for $450 a month. He recalled that her cousin "Terry" and a person named "Eugene" lived there. Eugene had suffered several strokes and had a "mean streak." As for the house next door, defendant maintained that a Spanish couple with a child lived downstairs, hippies lived upstairs, and he never went inside.

Sergeant Sanchez advised defendant he was investigating Bradley's death. Defendant said, "I turned my life around a long time ago." Shown pictures of the vest, beanie, and sock, defendant denied they belonged to him. Defendant said he wanted to tell the police that Eugene was mean and violent and went to jail two or three weeks earlier for beating up a girl. Sanchez then asked defendant, "Who else is mean? Are you mean?" Defendant answered: "I don't like—I'm not into violence. I don't like people that's into violence and I ain't got no violent record at all. Period. Just because I ain't got no violent record don't mean that a person ain't violent because they ... probably ain't got caught. But I know in my heart I don't like ... violence.... I ... don't like that. You know, uh—uh, when that guy killed all them little kids that bothered me for a whole—a long time. You know, I hate the evilness in people.... But, um, that's the world ... the way of the world."

Sergeant Sanchez interviewed Mr. Fritch for about an hour on February 20, 2013. Mr. Fritch is "a little slow," but he was cooperative and answered questions about "[h]ow long he lived or first if he lived at the house next door, which he did; how long he did; if he knew Mr. Hall; and how and what he knew about Mr. Hall; and how he described him, both personal wise and character wise."

The Defense Case

Defendant testified in his own behalf and denied killing Bradley. Defendant was 62 years old and homeless at the time of trial. When he was interviewed by police he had been living on the streets and at the City Team shelter in downtown Oakland for about nine months. Before that, he lived in Diane Wilson's house next door to Bradley, whom he knew.

Defendant admitted on direct examination he had been convicted of two felonies in 1997 and 1999, both residential burglaries. He worked for some bikers in San Leandro around that time. The methamphetamine he used made him work harder than others, but it never made him feel violent.

The night Bradley was killed, defendant was living under the freeway near Market and 36th Streets. He was wearing the vest that was in evidence, and had the hat and sock in his pocket. The hat was for sleeping outdoors. He was lying to police when he said he did not know Bradley and had never been inside Bradley's house. He knew the police wanted to talk to him about Bradley's death as soon as they took him to the homicide area of the police department. He lied to police because he was "deterred by fear ... [¶] ... that I was at Michael's house on the night in question when he passed, and we were in the house and we were talking, and I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • People v. Perez
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 27, 2020
    ......The great weight of authority below is consistent with this ruling. (See, e.g., People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 996–997, 231 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 ; People v. Hall (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 602, fn. 10, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 ; Conservatorship of K.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1274, 1283, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 ; People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 507–508, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 88 ; People v. Meraz (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1170, fn. 7, 212 ......
  • Inquiry Concerning Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson. !!!party1!!! v. !!!party2!!!
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 2, 2020
    ...with this ruling. (See, e.g., People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 996-997 [231 Cal.Rptr.3d 910]; People v. Hall (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 602, fn. 10 [232 Cal.Rptr.3d 865]; Conservatorship of K.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1274, 1283 [221 Cal.Rptr.3d 622]; People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13......
  • People v. Pickens
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 2020
    ...of character,' the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut it. (Evid. Code, § 1102, subd. (a); see id., subd. (b).)" (People v. Hall (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 591.) Under Evidence Code section 1102, subdivision (b), such rebuttal evidence may be "in the form ofopinion or reputation evidenc......
  • People v. Quezada
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 2019
    ...injure someone (§ 422) is also conduct involving moral turpitude. (People v. Thornton (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 419, 424.)" (People v. Hall (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 589.) A felony conviction for violating section 594 (vandalism) has been held to be a crime of moral turpitude (People v. Campbel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...41 Cal. 3d 826, 226 Cal. Rptr. 112, §8:10 Hall, People v. (1980) 28 Cal. 3d 143, 167 Cal. Rptr. 844, §18:50 Hall, People v. (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 576, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865, §11:10 Hall, People v. (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 282, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 431, §12:80 Hall, People v. (2000) 82 Cal. A......
  • Character and habit
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...may not offer evidence of defendant’s bad character to rebut good character evidence introduced by the defense. People v. Hall (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 576, 592, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865. When the defendant testifies to his good character, rebuttal is limited to opinion or reputation evidence. ......
  • Chapter 4 - §3. Character evidence offered to prove propensity
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...evidence; the prosecution cannot rebut its own evidence of the defendant's good character. See, e.g., People v. Hall (1st Dist.2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 591-92 (D did not place his character for peacefulness at issue during his testimony; evidence that D stated he was "peaceful person" was ......
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...Id.; People v. Gonzales (2d Dist.2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1089; see Perez, 4 Cal.5th at 456; People v. Hall (1st Dist.2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 576, 601. The court also held those statements to be nontestimonial because they are recorded for several purposes, only one of which is for criminal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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