People v. Hill

Decision Date30 March 1998
Docket NumberNo. S007386,S007386
Citation17 Cal.4th 800,72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656,952 P.2d 673
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 952 P.2d 673, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2287 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shawn HILL, Defendant and Appellant

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, Robert S. Henry, John R. Gorey and Kenneth C. Byrne, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WERDEGAR, Justice.

Shawn Hill was convicted in 1988 in Los Angeles County Superior Court of the robbery and first degree murder of Stuart Margetts (Pen.Code, §§ 211, 187; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated), the attempted robbery and attempted second degree murder of Ronald Johnson (§§ 664/211, 664/187), and the robbery of Carrie Howard (§ 211). The jury also found true a robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation (former § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i), now see § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), as well as deadly weapon use enhancement allegations for all five substantive crimes (§ 12022, subd. (b)), and great bodily injury enhancement allegations for the four crimes other than the murder (§ 12022.7). The jury set the penalty at death under the 1978 death penalty law. (§ 190.1 et seq.) This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)

The facts of this case portray an individual engaged in the deadly game of selling "bunk," or bogus rock cocaine, to unsuspecting buyers. When the prospective buyer discovers the scam and balks at completing the sale, he is stabbed in the chest. Although Ronald Johnson was severely injured, he survived this deadly assault. Stuart Margetts did not. Our review of the record,

[952 P.2d 679] however, reveals that defendant's trial was rife with serious error. The most disturbing aspect of this case was the outrageous and pervasive misconduct on the part of the state's representative at trial: the public prosecutor. As we explain, although we might find any individual instance of prosecutorial misconduct or other error harmless standing alone, we cannot ignore the combined prejudicial effect these many missteps had on the overall fairness of the trial. Finding the cumulative prejudice flowing from the combination of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors rendered defendant's trial fundamentally unfair, we reverse the judgment in all respects.

FACTS
Guilt Phase

About 6:00 p.m. on August 25, 1986, Margetts told his girlfriend, Rita Berner, he was going out to buy some tools. Berner saw him take two $100 bills from a nightstand. He left in his blue Chevrolet S-10 truck. Shortly thereafter, Ceora (Mona) Williams, then 16 years old, was walking through the parking lot of the Pierce Apartments in the Pacoima section of Los Angeles, near the intersection of Pierce Street and Van Nuys Boulevard. Williams was on her way to play baseball; she met Reginald Berry on the way. She saw a blue Chevrolet pickup truck drive into the apartment house parking lot and pull into a space. A Black male walked over to the driver's side of the car and conversed with the driver, a White male. Williams testified the Black man was defendant, that she could see defendant's face "real well," and that she recognized him, having seen him in the parking lot off and on over the past few years.

Williams testified defendant had what appeared to be rock cocaine in his hand; he placed the other hand on top of the truck's cab while he spoke to the driver. She overheard the man in the truck ask, "Do you have a 50?" The driver was counting money, holding the bills in front of his chest. Williams saw defendant open a knife and hold it in his left hand on top of the truck cab. Defendant then looked at her and she became frightened, averting her eyes. When she looked back after about 10 seconds, defendant was gone and the driver of the truck began to drive away.

The truck did not get very far out of the parking lot, coming to rest just halfway down the block. Two women walked to the truck and placed the driver's head out of the window to "give him air." Williams and Berry walked over to the truck and saw blood on the driver's shirt. The police were called; they determined the driver, Margetts, was dead from a single stab wound in the chest. No one saw anyone take anything from the truck. With the exception of a foreign dollar bill, police found no money in the victim's wallet, on his person, or in the truck. On the console in the truck, police found two pebbles that resembled rock cocaine. A later chemical analysis disclosed the pebbles were not made of cocaine.

Nadine Reese was a resident of the Van Nuys Apartments, located behind the Pierce Apartments; the two buildings are connected by parking lots. Reese, one of defendant's friends, testified she heard something about a killing in a blue pickup truck, and that defendant told her he was the person who "stabbed the white boy" in the truck. Mona Williams later identified a photograph of defendant as the man who stabbed Margetts. Charles Caudell, a fingerprint expert, testified a palm print found on the roof of Margetts's truck (just above the driver's side door) belonged to defendant.

Two days later, on August 27, 1986, Ronald Johnson, accompanied by Carrie Howard, drove into the parking lot at the Van Nuys Apartments in Johnson's pickup truck. Johnson had previously purchased drugs in the parking lot and intended to buy some drugs that day. Three men, including defendant, approached Johnson's truck and offered to sell him cocaine. When defendant showed Johnson his wares, Johnson could tell the pebbles were not rock cocaine and refused to buy. Defendant then said, "Give me your money or I'll kill you," and displayed a large knife with a black handle. As Johnson was reaching under his seat for the money, defendant began jabbing Johnson with the In the meantime, one of the men accompanying defendant moved to the other side of the truck and grabbed Howard's purse, but she was able to retrieve it. After being stabbed, Johnson drove out of the parking lot, whereupon his lung collapsed and Howard began driving to a hospital. They were stopped by police, who transferred Johnson to the patrol car and transported him to a hospital.

[952 P.2d 680] knife. When Johnson handed over the money, defendant stabbed him in the chest.

Nadine Reese observed the Johnson stabbing and later identified defendant as Johnson's assailant. Both Johnson and Howard identified photographs of defendant as the man who stabbed Johnson.

The next day, August 28, 1986, police encountered defendant walking with another man and two women near the Pierce Apartments. The other man placed a knife with a fixed blade on the fence as police approached. Defendant turned and walked away but was apprehended. Police found a type of folding knife (known as a "buck knife") in his waistband. Both the fixed-blade knife and defendant's pants had blood on them.

A police serologist testified the blood on the fixed-blade knife was type O; 48 percent of the population has type O blood. Margetts had type O blood. The blood on defendant's pants was type AB. Both Johnson and defendant have type AB blood. The serologist found no blood on the folding knife. An examination of the enzymes in the blood found on defendant's pants revealed only 4 out of 100,000 persons could have supplied that blood. Johnson's blood fell within the small group of persons with such blood; defendant's did not. The coroner testified that Margetts's fatal wound was consistent with having been caused by the folding knife.

On June 16, 1988, following the close of the day's court proceedings, Bailiff Edward Pena was escorting defendant back to the lockup when defendant exclaimed, " '[W]hy do all them people be lying like that?' " When Pena inquired what he meant, defendant replied, " 'I always stab them with my left hand. That's where I have my power.' " This was apparently in response to Johnson's testimony that day that his assailant held the knife in his right hand.

Four days later, Reese (who also was in jail) found herself on a bus with defendant. Defendant called Reese a "snitch" and said he would "send his people after [her]."

In his defense, defendant called Reginald Berry, who had been walking with Mona Williams and had observed the aborted drug sale between Margetts and defendant. Berry testified the drug seller was shorter than defendant and that he did not look "anything like" defendant. Defendant also called Delores Smith, who had been visiting a friend in a nearby apartment and observed Margetts's murder. Contrary to Williams's testimony that she saw only defendant at the truck, Smith testified she saw several people around the pickup truck, saw money changing hands, and then observed a "bunch of confusion" and arguing.

Penalty Phase

Cabrina Ross testified for the prosecution at the penalty phase. She stated that a day or so after the Margetts killing, she saw defendant rob a White woman and a Mexican man in separate incidents. In both robberies, defendant accosted the victim in the vicinity of the Pierce Apartments and held a knife to the victim's neck. Nadine Reese also testified at the penalty phase; she stated defendant told her he stabbed "the white boy in the truck" because he believed Margetts was a police officer. Reese had not testified to this fact at the guilt phase because she had just remembered it.

Defendant's mother, Sharion Cobb-Geiger, and his stepfather, Thomas Geiger, both testified on his behalf at the penalty phase. Cobb-Geiger stated she married Theodore Hill when she was 15 years old, and had 3 children with him. Hill, however, was not defendant's natural father. Cobb-Geiger separated from Hill when defendant was conceived, although she never married defenda...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3916 cases
  • People v. Molano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2019
    ...unsupported by the record." ( Tully , at p. 1041, fn. 32, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 282 P.3d 173.)Citing People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673, defendant further counters that "no showing of intentionality or bad faith is required" to establish that a prosecutor ......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 17, 2017
    ...195, 355 P.3d 384.) The prosecutor's conduct need not be intentional to constitute reversible error. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 822–823, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.)"[T]he rule requiring claims of prosecutorial misconduct be preserved for appellate review by a timely and s......
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...Objection may be excused if it would have been futile or an admonition would not have cured the harm. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820, 72 Cal. Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) In considering defendant's claims, we recall the limited issues that in dispute in the present case. In v......
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 2021
    ...harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error." ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) "The ‘litmus test’ for cumulative error ‘is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.’ " ( ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...engage in the following conduct during closing argument: • Mention or discuss matters not admitted into evidence. People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 800, 828, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656; see §21:70. CLOSING ARGUMENT 21-5 Closing Argument §21:30 • Inject himself or herself into the argument. People......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...313, §3:110 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834, §10:170 Hill, People v. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 800, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656, §§1:80, 5:90, 5:100, 20:20, 20:50, 20:60, 21:30, 21:70, 21:100, 21:110, 21:120, 21:130 Hill, People v. (1967) 66 Cal.......
  • Objections, motions and related procedures
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...effect,” rendering the degree of overall unfairness more than that flowing from the sum of the individual errors. People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 800, 844-847, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656. Harmless error is more likely to be found in a court trial than in a jury trial. For objections in bench tr......
  • Coordinating the attack in trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests
    • May 5, 2021
    ...and “contemptuous” … for having asked the prosecutor to stipulate to the length of the jury box. [ People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 800, 833.] There were numerous other instances of misconduct which led the Court to state, “[The prosecutor’s] tactics were petty and childish, heightening th......
  • 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