People v. Hill
| Citation | 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475,3 Cal.4th 959,839 P.2d 984 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. S005169,No. 26427,S005169,26427 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Parties | , 839 P.2d 984 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael HILL, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. |
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Miller, Starr & Regalia and Michael J. Hassen, Oakland, for defendant and appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dane R. Gillette and Don Jacobson, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant Michael Hill was convicted of two first degree murders (Pen.Code, § 187) and one count of robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) with the personal use of a firearm. The jury found to be true the special circumstances that the murders were committed during a robbery (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) and that defendant was guilty of multiple murders (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
On August 15, 1985, the bodies of Anthony Brice, Sr. (Brice), and his four-year-old son, Anthony Brice, Jr. (Anthony), were found by police on the floor of the jewelry store operated by Brice in Oakland, California. Each victim had been shot in the head at close range with a .38-caliber gun. The appearance of the crime scene suggested there had been a robbery. Within a week after the killings, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors offered a $5,000 reward for information resulting in the arrest and conviction of the killer(s).
Oakland Police Department Sergeant Gerald Medsker was the primary investigator assigned to the Brice killings. He first learned on August 22, 1985, of defendant's possible involvement. The following day, Sergeant Medsker contacted Robert Fox, a jewelry salesman, who had been in Brice's store the day of the killings. Based on a photographic lineup, Fox identified defendant as having been in the store while Fox was there.
On September 10, 1985, after further investigation, Sergeant Medsker obtained from the Alameda County Superior Court an order allowing police to transport defendant from the county jail in Santa Rita to police department headquarters for questioning. On September 11, 1985, defendant was taken to headquarters and was informed that the police were investigating the Brice killings. Defendant signed a written waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and provided police with three statements recorded on audio tape. He incriminated his acquaintance Michael McCray, an illegal drugs dealer.
The police arrested McCray on the evening of September 11. He consented to a search of his automobile, and police found a pouch of jewelry, which McCray told them he had won in a poker game. With McCray's consent, police also searched the room where he was residing. They found twenty-eight assorted gold chains in an envelope, two shotguns, three baseball bats, an assortment of shotgun, rifle, and pistol ammunition, empty .38- and .44-caliber shells, and narcotics paraphernalia. When interrogated by the police, McCray incriminated defendant by asserting as follows: Defendant had owed McCray $600 for cocaine. On the day of the Brice killings, McCray loaned defendant a .38-caliber handgun and ammunition. McCray provided defendant with the gun because defendant had said he intended to use it in a robbery. Defendant returned to McCray's house the afternoon of the killings with a brown paper bag containing at least three dozen gold chains and one dozen watches. Defendant also had about $300 in cash, which he claimed to have taken from a jewelry store. He gave McCray $150 in cash and jewelry worth about $450.
After further investigation, defendant was charged by information on May 19, 1986, with two counts of murder (Pen.Code, § 187), one count of robbery (Pen.Code, § 211), two statutory special circumstances--multiple murder (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and murder committed during a robbery (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i))--use of a firearm (Pen.Code, §§ 1203.06 and 12022.5), and infliction of great bodily injury (Pen.Code, §§ 1203.075 and 12022.7). The information also alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of the possession of narcotics for sale.
Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the special circumstances and other allegations. He subsequently amended his plea to admit the allegation of a prior criminal conviction. The prosecution amended the information by striking the allegations of great bodily injury.
A. The prosecution's case
The prosecution's theory of the case was that defendant robbed and killed the Brices because defendant was under pressure to repay a drug debt to Michael McCray. The prosecution also contended McCray was defendant's accomplice as a result of having loaned the gun to defendant with knowledge that defendant intended to use it to commit a robbery. Several persons testified regarding defendant's actions and statements during the period shortly before and after the Brice killings.
Derek Agnew testified that he knew Brice and had entrusted him with cash to keep in the store's safe. On August 13, two days before the killings, Agnew went to the store and gave Brice an additional $150 for safekeeping. Defendant was in the store at that time. Agnew already had about $550 being kept in the store's safe. He testified that, "As I started counting my money I like say, you know, he [defendant] was in my business."
Robert Fox, the costume jewelry salesman who had previously identified defendant to police (see p. 479, of 13 Cal.Rptr.2d, p. 987 of 839 P.2d, ante), testified that he (Fox) had been in Brice's store on about 10 occasions before the killings. Fox purchased costume jewelry from Brice, who engraved it with the false notation, "14k." Fox sold the fake jewelry, known as "slum," for about double the amount he had paid Brice for it. Fox was in Brice's store about noon on the day of the killings. Fox noticed that Brice had a large amount of currency in his pocket. While Fox was in the store, defendant knocked on the door and was allowed to enter. Fox did not see a gun on defendant. When Fox left about 15 minutes later, the only persons in the store were defendant and the Brices.
Denine Houston testified that in August 1985 she was living in a house on 23rd Avenue in Oakland (the group house) with her boyfriend and several other persons including defendant. On the morning of August 13, 1985, defendant was in her room watching television. She heard defendant tell her boyfriend that defendant "had a lick up at a slum shop." "Lick up" meant a robbery. "Slum shop" meant a fake jewelry store. According to Houston, defendant said that "It was a slum shop on Foothill off of 38th and he can get in because he know the people real good, and he had to have some money cause he was tired of being broke." (Brice's jewelry store was located at 38th and Foothill in Oakland.) Houston's boyfriend, Sam Dartez, also testified that a day or two before the killings, defendant said that "He got a lick up and he's going to have some money."
Houston further testified that, on the morning of August 15, defendant "was talking about going to get his piece [gun], going to take care of his business." Defendant returned about an hour or two later with a gun that Houston identified as being similar to People's exhibit No. 4-A, a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. Defendant told Houston he was tired of being broke. Defendant left and returned about three or four hours later with a brown paper bag (approximately five or six inches square and fifteen to eighteen inches high) containing "a bunch of slum jewelry," "pockets full of money," and an "eight ball [one-eighth ounce] of cocaine."
Three other witnesses testified similarly. Annie Mae Smith, who also lived in the group house, testified that on August 15 she saw defendant at the house. "He had a bag of jewelry, some money and a gun." The gun was substantially similar to the .38-caliber Smith & Wesson introduced into evidence as People's exhibit No. 4-A. Defendant said, "This is the way to get yours."
Rudolph Wilkins, another resident of the group house, is defendant's cousin. He testified that on the morning of August 15, defendant came into Wilkins's bedroom, showed him a .38-caliber revolver similar to People's exhibit No. 4-A, and asked for some .38-caliber bullets. Wilkins had no bullets. Defendant left and returned midafternoon with a brown paper bag full of gold-colored necklaces. He also had a "wad of money" in his pocket and repaid Wilkins $30. Defendant said that "he had knocked over a jewelry store and he had snuffed somebody."
Marta Daniels, who had lived with Michael McCray for several years and was his "common law" sister-in-law, testified that on the morning of the killings she asked defendant to give her a dollar and that he told her he had no money but would have one "when he got through with his lick." To Daniels, a "lick" meant a "robbery," a "scam," a "con," or "any kind of thing where you get something for doing something wrong." Later that same day, defendant gave Daniels $50 to buy some cocaine. He had a "fan of money" that Daniels estimated to be "about 600 dollars." He said "that he had to have his and he was going to get it and this is what he got." Three days later, she observed defendant on a street corner selling jewelry and watches.
Sam Dartez moved into the group house about two to three weeks before the killings. Dartez had known defendant for three to four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cornejo
...found prejudiced his defense. This argument is forfeited for failure to raise it in the trial court. (See People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 994–995, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984, overruled on another point in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409, ......
-
People v. Cardenas
...length of the interview, the sergeant's trial testimony would not have altered the outcome of the suppression hearing (cf. People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 979-982 [defendant's confession was not involuntary where interrogation took place in five separate sessions involving approximatel......
-
Lenix v. Uribe
...§ 1200, subd. (a), italics added.) Evidence offered to explain conduct or state of mind, on the other hand, is not hearsay. (People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 987, overruled on another ground by Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13; People v. Bolden (1996) 44 Cal.......
-
People v. Jackson
...to his individual culpability, irrespective of the punishment imposed on others.’ [Citation.]" (People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 1014, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984 ; see People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1223, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d ...
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Privilege against self-incrimination
...to each question asked. See People v. Chandler (2d Dist.1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 798, 805, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959. In some cases, however, the witness may be able to make a blanket invocation of the privilege if the court decides that the privilege can ......
-
Table of Cases null
...3-B, §5.4.5(1) People v. Higareda, 24 Cal. App. 4th 1399, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 763 (2d Dist. 1994)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(3)(g) People v. Hill, 3 Cal. 4th 959, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 475, 839 P.2d 984 (1992)—Ch. 3-A, §3.4.3(1)(c).4; Ch. 4-C, §3.5.3(1) (b)[2] People v. Hill, 12 Cal. 3d 731, 117 Cal. Rptr. 39......
-
Chapter 3 - §3. Characterization of hearsay evidence
...about those nonhearsay statements. Id. Case study 4. A murder was committed during the robbery of a jewelry store. People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 971, overruled on other grounds, Price v. Superior Ct. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046. The defendant asserted that a third party, not the defendant......