People v. Hill
| Decision Date | 05 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | G046249 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURTIS JAMES HILL, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAppeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas M. Goethals, Judge. Affirmed.
Marleigh A. Kopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Curtis James Hill stands convicted of special circumstances murder for causing the death of Cecil Warren in the course of a robbery. Although Warren did not die until nearly four years after the robbery, the jury determined he did so as a result of the injuries appellant inflicted on him during that crime. Appellant contends his trial was unfair because the prosecution introduced statements that were taken in violation of his Miranda rights,1 his attorney negligently allowed the jury to hear about other crimes he may have committed, and the state's expert medical witnesses referenced the findings of a nontestifying physician in rendering their opinions as to the cause of Warren's death. Appellant also contends cumulative error compels reversal and California's special circumstances law is unconstitutional. Finding appellant's contentions unmeritorious, we affirm the judgment.
On November 11, 2003, Henry Stoltenberg woke up at around 4:00 a.m. and went for his usual morning walk in Huntington Beach. On past walks at that time of day, he had seen Cecil Warren doing grounds work at the Union Bank on Beach Boulevard. However, when Stoltenberg reached the bank that morning, Warren was lying in the fetal position in the parking lot, a few feet from his van. Warren's face was bloody and swollen, and when Stoltenberg asked him what happened, he said, "I've been mugged." Warren seemed to be going in and out of consciousness, so Stoltenberg called 911.
Warren was still coherent when the police and paramedics arrived at the scene. He said he had been "jumped" and "beaten up" and also revealed he had a history of heart problems. Although he did not appear to be in cardiac arrest, the paramedics considered Warren's situation to be serious and transported him to the hospital. After arriving there, Warren took a turn for the worse; he was less coherent and appeared to behaving difficulty staying focused and oriented. Eventually, he slipped into a coma and had to be placed on life support.
In investigating the incident, Huntington Beach Police Officer Mark Wersching reviewed surveillance tape from businesses in the area and discovered appellant and John McKinney patronized a Mobile gas station near the bank at about 4:15 on the morning in question. Wersching also learned appellant and McKinney lived in close proximity to the bank.
On November 21, 2003, 10 days after the incident occurred, Wersching and a team of officers executed a search warrant at appellant's apartment. During the search, appellant agreed to speak with Wersching and was interviewed in a bedroom in the presence of a second police officer. The officers did not read appellant his Miranda rights before commencing the interview, which was tape recorded. But they did tell appellant he was not under arrest.
Explaining what he did the night before Warren was assaulted, appellant said he and McKinney went out drinking. They were dropped off in the early morning hours by the Union Bank and spotted a van in the parking lot of the bank. Because the van was open and they did not see anyone around the vehicle, they decided to go "fuck around" with it. As they were poking around inside the van, an "old man," Warren, appeared and asked them what they were doing. Appellant punched Warren in the face, and when he fell to the ground, he searched his pockets and took his wallet. Then he kicked Warren in the head and fled the scene with McKinney.
As part of his investigation, Wersching also interviewed appellant's boss, Asaf Ahmad. Ahmad said that when he picked up appellant for work on the morning Warren was assaulted, appellant talked about "jacking someone."
The investigation also revealed that appellant's DNA profile matched the DNA profile of a hair that was found on the right rear pocket of Warren's jeans. The odds of such a match occurring randomly were estimated to be about one in a trillion.
Appellant and McKinney were originally charged with assault and robbery. Although appellant pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to prison, that was not the end of his legal woes. On September 22, 2007, nearly four years after the original crimes, Warren passed away at the age of 81. Warren's death prompted the prosecution to file new charges against appellant and McKinney. The prosecution charged them with first degree felony murder for causing Warren's death in the course of a robbery and a burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) The prosecution also alleged as special circumstances that they murdered Warren while they were engaged in the commission of a robbery and a burglary. (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A) & (G).)
Appellant and McKinney were tried separately.2 At appellant's trial, the prosecution elected not to present any evidence regarding his prior guilty plea. Thus, it was required to prove appellant's guilt independent of earlier proceedings.
Before trial, appellant moved to suppress his confession on the grounds it was involuntarily rendered and not preceded by Miranda warnings. The trial court denied the motion, but at appellant's request, it did order the prosecution to redact his confession so as to eliminate any references to his prior criminal activity.
At trial, the state called two expert medical witnesses to testify about the cause of Warren's death. The first was Dr. Aruna Singhania, the forensic pathologist who conducted Warren's autopsy, and the second was Dr. Singhania's supervisor, Anthony Juguilon, M.D., who is the Chief Forensic Pathologist for Orange County. During their testimony, these experts explained that, in forming their opinions about the case, they relied on multiple sources of information, including a report prepared by neuropathologist John Andrews, M.D. Dr. Andrews did not testify at trial, nor was his report admitted into evidence.
Based on all the information they acquired, Dr. Singhania and Dr. Juguilon determined Warren died of bronchopneumonia. They surmised Warren's feeding tube, which was part of his life support system, caused an infection which led to pneumonia in his lungs, and eventually that caused his major organs to shut down. As for why Warren had to be placed on life support in the first place, Drs. Singhania and Juguilon believed he suffered blunt force trauma to the head. Due to that trauma, Warren could not breathe on his own and required a feeding tube and ventilator to stay alive, which led to him contracting the fatal bronchopneumonia.
Trial was by jury. Defense counsel did not call any witnesses on appellant's behalf, but in closing argument, he argued appellant was not guilty of special circumstances murder because in attacking Warren, he did not commit the underlying crimes of robbery or burglary. Defense counsel also argued the prosecution failed to prove appellant's actions were the cause of Warren's death.
The jury disagreed. Although it found the burglary-murder special circumstance allegation not true, it convicted appellant of first degree murder and found the robbery-murder special circumstance allegation true. Thereupon, the trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison without parole.
As he did at trial, appellant contends the court should have suppressed his confession because it was involuntarily rendered and obtained in violation of Miranda. We disagree.
The admissibility of appellant's confession was litigated both at the preliminary hearing and at an Evidence Code section 402 hearing before trial. The central issue was whether appellant was in custody at the time he was interviewed, thereby requiring the detectives to read him his Miranda rights. (See Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492, 495 [].)
At the preliminary hearing, Wersching testified regarding the circumstances under which the interview took place. He said that a week and half after Warren was assaulted, he and about 10 other police officers went to appellant's apartment to serve a search warrant and look for evidence of the crime. The officers were in uniform and wearing "raid vests" when they arrived at the apartment.
Wersching knocked and gave notice at the door, and when the officers gained entrance, they had their guns drawn. Inside, they discovered appellant and his wife and their baby, along with two other adults and two children. Appellant was contacted in an upstairs bedroom. At gunpoint, he was ordered to walk downstairs into the living room. He was then searched and ordered to sit on the couch with the other occupants of the apartment, who had been rounded up in a similar fashion. Asked at the preliminary hearing if appellant was handcuffed during that time, Wersching testified, "I don't believe any of the occupants were handcuffed at that point."
Wersching explained that once all of the occupants were searched and seated, the officers put away their weapons because the apartment had...
To continue reading
Request your trial