People v. Harris

Citation78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295,43 Cal.4th 1269,185 P.3d 727
Decision Date19 June 2008
Docket NumberNo. S037625.,S037625.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lanell Craig HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Joel Kirshenbaum, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey and Susan D. Martynec, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CORRIGAN, J.

A jury sentenced defendant Lanell Craig Harris to death after finding him guilty of first degree murder during the commission of a robbery, attempted murder, and three counts of robbery, all with personal use of a firearm.1 The jury hung on another murder charge, and on whether the attempted murder was premeditated. This appeal is automatic. We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS

The facts may be briefly stated for background purposes; further details and procedural matters will be discussed in connection with defendant's contentions.

A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution
a. The Contreras Murder

On the evening of August 7, 1991, defendant approached a group of men gathered in a grassy area of the Van Nuys Recreational Center. Defendant asked if they had drugs to sell; when they said no, he offered to sell them a camera. No one wanted the camera. When one of the men offered defendant a cup of soup, he became angry and knocked the cup to the ground. Another man, Alfredo Calleros, saw defendant try to pull up a large pipe that was partially buried in the ground. Calleros picked up a milk crate and prepared to throw it at defendant. Defendant left, saying he would be back.

Defendant returned with another man about 15 minutes later. He approached Calleros and tried to shoot him, but the handgun misfired. As Calleros ran, defendant pointed the gun skyward and pulled the trigger. This time it fired. Most of the men in the area fled, but a group playing cards remained. Defendant and his companion approached them. Defendant aimed the gun at Efren Reyes's head and took money from his pocket. Defendant's companion took money from Reynaldo Villatoro.

Defendant approached Julian Contreras and reached for his wallet. When Contreras resisted, defendant shot him in the thigh. Contreras fell and defendant shot him twice more in the back. Defendant took Contreras's wallet and left with his companion. Contreras died at the hospital.

b. The Rodriguez Murder

The murder charge on which the jury was unable to reach a verdict arose from events in January 1991 in Los Angeles. On the night of January 2, Alba Rodriguez went with her mother Marta to a Winchell's donut shop where Marta worked. Around midnight, Marta left to get supplies from another store. She returned and tapped on the door, signaling Alba to open it. As Alba approached the door, she saw defendant standing at the service window. The door was stuck closed; Marta told Alba to wait on the customer. Alba noticed that defendant had trouble speaking when he gave his order. While Alba was preparing the order, she heard her mother scream. Alba ran to the door and saw Marta struggling with defendant, who had a butcher knife. There was blood on her mother's chest. Alba unsuccessfully tried to open the door. Marta twice told her to call the police. As she went to the telephone, Alba saw defendant leaving. While she was making the phone call, Marta came through the door, collapsed, and died.

Marta had a stab wound on the left side of her chest, four inches deep, which cut through a piece of one rib and completely through her heart. She also had a wound on her left forearm, which the medical examiner characterized as a typical defensive wound.

2. Defense

Defendant presented an alibi defense to the Contreras murder. His wife, Lucinda Harris, testified that she and defendant spent the entire afternoon and evening together. They visited Lucinda's parents, went to a pool hall for about an hour, and then to Lucinda's apartment, arriving around 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. They drank some beer, and Lucinda took a bath. She could hear defendant talking on the telephone as she bathed. He did not leave her apartment that night.

The defense called no witnesses regarding the Rodriguez murder.

B. Penalty Phase
1. Prosecution

Contreras's son and daughter testified about the impact his killing had on them and their family.

The court took judicial notice of defendant's six prior convictions, all resulting from pleas of guilty or no contest: (1) a residential burglary on November 21, 1984; (2) an assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury on December 16, 1984; (3) a first degree robbery on December 16, 1984; (4) an assault with a deadly weapon that resulted in the intentional infliction of great bodily injury on December 17, 1984; (5) a second degree robbery on December 17, 1984; and (6) an escape from police officers on December 18, 1984.

The prosecution presented witnesses to three incidents of defendant's uncharged criminal activity. William Scott testified that on August 21, 1979, when he was in high school, he was approached by three young men as he was leaving a store. One of them was defendant, who appeared to be about 16 years old. They commented on Scott's bicycle, an expensive racing model, and defendant asked if he wanted to trade it for an inferior bicycle. When Scott refused, defendant hit him in the windpipe without warning and left with Scott's bicycle. On the morning of his testimony, Scott was unable to identify defendant from a group of six photos, but when shown a single larger picture he recognized defendant as the person who had hit him.

In 1982, Christopher Stokes and Louie Magdaleno were employed as police officers for the Los Angeles Unified School District. On December 7 of that year, Stokes detained defendant, then a student, near the auditorium at San Fernando High School. He brought defendant in handcuffs to the security office and sat him in a room with Magdaleno. Defendant appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Stokes went to an adjacent office, where he heard defendant yelling threats at Magdaleno. Defendant demanded to know why he was there, and threatened to kill Magdaleno. Stokes reentered the room, and defendant threatened to kill him and his wife, saying he knew where they lived, or could find out. He was "screaming and yelling," and "had spit coming out of his mouth, a lot of foam and mucous from his nose." Defendant began to walk toward Magdaleno, who subdued him with the assistance of two Los Angeles police officers. Shortly thereafter, defendant tried to walk out the door, and a scuffle ensued. Defendant was sprayed with Mace but continued struggling for five or 10 minutes. Both officers took defendant's threats seriously. Stokes had 24-hour police protection at his house, and Magdaleno stayed away from his home for the rest of the week.

Jerome Van Tress testified that he was a Frito Lay salesman in 1984. Early on the morning of December 17, he drove to a 7-Eleven store in Pacoima. Looking inside, he saw someone throwing the clerk, who was a small man, from one end of the counter to the other. Van Tress drove to a police station and reported the attack. Returning to the 7-Eleven, he saw several police cars. The clerk was being taken to an ambulance; there was blood on the floor of the store and on the sidewalk outside. Van Tress identified defendant as the assailant. Detective Richard Knapp of the Los Angeles Police Department testified that he investigated the 7-Eleven robbery. Following a lead, he and a detective went to an apartment across the street, where a woman answered the door. Knapp saw defendant lying on the floor inside, with a bloody folding knife on a table next to him. The jury was told that this incident led to defendant's conviction of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, and that he admitted intentionally inflicting great bodily injury on the 7-Eleven clerk.

2. Defense

At the penalty phase, defendant's stepmother Doris Harris testified about his experiences growing up, particularly his troubled relationship with his father. Dr. Robert White, a psychologist hired by the defense, interviewed defendant seven or eight times, and concluded that defendant suffered from chronic severe depression. Dr. White related traumatic events in defendant's life as well as his positive behavior in structured settings, like prison. Sonja Fox, a chaplain at a probation camp for juveniles, testified about her favorable impression of defendant's conduct during a six-month stay at the camp. Defendant's football coach in junior college, Charles Ferrero, testified that he was a positive influence on the team. Christine Branich, a correctional officer from Folsom, testified that defendant was a good worker and a good influence on other inmates while serving a prison term beginning in 1987. A deputy sheriff at the Los Angeles Central Jail, Jeffrey Creager, testified that while defendant was in custody in 1993, the year of the trial in this case, he was chosen as a trusty inmate worker, and had helped rescue another inmate who attempted suicide.

II. DISCUSSION
A. The Adequacy of the Record

Defendant challenges the adequacy of the appellate record in a number of respects. He initiated lengthy proceedings below to correct and augment the record, which resulted in three settled statements designating omissions that could not be rectified.

"[S]tate law entitles a defendant only to an appellate record `adequate to permit [him or her] to argue' the points raised in the appeal. [Citation.] Federal constitutional requirements are similar. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require the state to furnish an indigent defendant with a record sufficient to permit adequate and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
506 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 21, 2018
    ......We decline to revisit our prior holdings. "[Penal Code] [s]ection 190.3 sufficiently narrows the class of murderers eligible for capital punishment." ( People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1322, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 185 P.3d 727.) " ‘[C]onsideration of the circumstances of the crime under section 190.3, factor (a) does not result in arbitrary or capricious imposition of the death penalty.’ " ( People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1066, 71 ......
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 15, 2009
    ...More specifically, "[j]ury unanimity is not required with respect to unadjudicated criminal conduct." (People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1316, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 185 P.3d 727.) Juries are not required to agree unanimously on "foundational" matters such as that a crime involving viol......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 20, 2017
    ......Donald Lewis BROOKS, Defendant and Appellant. S099274 Supreme Court of California Filed March 20, 2017 As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 31, 2017 John L. Staley, San Diego, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Acting Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Sharlene A. Honnaka and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Cantil–Sakauye, C.J. 3 Cal.5th 16 ......
  • People v. Delgado
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 27, 2017
    ......Anthony Gilbert DELGADO, Defendant and Appellant. S089609 Supreme Court of California Filed February 27, 2017 Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Jolie Lipsig, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette and Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Ward A. Campbell, Stephanie A. Mitchell, Sean M. McCoy and Tia M. Coronado, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Corrigan, J. 2 Cal.5th 552 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Witness
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...the killing, because witness seemed “reluctant to answer,” suggesting he was an evasive witness rather than forgetful. People v. Harris , 185 P.3d 727, 741 (Cal. 2008). Trial court did not abuse discretion when it allowed prosecutor to use suggestive questions in helping to direct witness’s......
  • Objections, motions and related procedures
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. 4th 804, 849, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 364. • Requested the instruction to the jury which is challenged on appeal. People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1269, 1293, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295. • Proposed instructions to the jury defective in similar respects to those of which the party complains on a......
  • Jury conduct and management
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...proceed if the court finds that the jury remains impartial and will render a verdict based only on the evidence. People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1269, 1303-1304, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295. But if a juror forms an opinion, from outside information, so strong that the court is of the belief it......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...16 Cal. 4th 635, 672, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 573. Not all questions calling for a “yes” or “no” answer are leading. People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1269, 1285, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295. Whether a question is leading depends on whether it is unduly suggestive under the circumstances. People v. Pea......
  • 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