People v. Hinton

Decision Date26 January 2006
Docket NumberNo. S037302.,S037302.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eric Lamont HINTON, Defendant and Appellant.

Jay L. Lichtman, Los Angeles, and Tracy J. Dressner, La Crescenta, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BAXTER, J.

A Los Angeles County jury convicted defendant Eric Lamont Hinton of the first degree murders of Landis Barnes, Albert Brown, and Tenoa Stevenson; selling a substance in lieu of a controlled substance, while personally armed with a firearm; and attempted robbery, with personal use of a firearm. (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664/211, 12022, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a).)1 The jury also found true the burglary-murder, robbery-murder, and prior-murder-conviction special circumstances as to these three murders as well as a multiple-murder special circumstance. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2), (3), (17)(A) & (G).) After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The court denied defendant's motions for a new trial (§ 1181) and to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)) and sentenced defendant to death.

This appeal is automatic. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 24, 1988, Landis Barnes, Albert Brown, and Brown's cousin Tenoa Stevenson were shot in a Best Western motel room in Monterey Park during a drug deal. Barnes and Brown died at the scene. Stevenson managed to stagger outside but was chased by two men in a silver BMW, one of whom exited the vehicle to pursue him on foot and shoot him again, fatally, in a nearby used car lot.

Maribelle Santiago, who worked as a "runner" for Stevenson and who testified under a grant of immunity, identified defendant and Steve Hicks as having been with Barnes, Brown, and Stevenson at the motel shortly before the murders. Joel Stephen Cunningham, a convicted felon who also testified under a grant of immunity, confirmed that defendant and Hicks were in the motel room with Barnes, Brown, and Stevenson when the shooting started. Brett Johansen, who had just purchased some groceries at a nearby market, witnessed two men in a BMW chase Stevenson down. Johansen's description of the BMW's driver was consistent with Hicks's appearance; his description of the passenger—and shooter—was consistent with defendant's appearance.

After a series of false statements to police following his arrest, defendant eventually admitted being in the motel room with Hicks during the drug transaction when the shooting started, but claimed Hicks was the shooter. He also admitted pursuing Stevenson in the BMW, but claimed he did so only because Hicks held him at gunpoint. He denied shooting anyone and claimed that Hicks alone shot and killed Barnes, Brown, and Stevenson, using two different guns.

After these police interviews, defendant was released. On August 6, 1989, he murdered Dwayne Reed at a gas station in Los Angeles. Defendant was convicted of this murder, which was the basis for the prior-murder-conviction special circumstance, on June 5, 1992. He was convicted of the Barnes, Brown, and Stevenson murders and sentenced to death on February 25, 1993.

Murders of Barnes, Brown, and Stevenson

In May 1988, Tenoa Stevenson asked his friend Joel Stephen Cunningham for help in finding a supplier of kilo-size quantities of cocaine. Cunningham thought immediately of Landis Barnes, whom he had met a few days earlier. At that time, Barnes had said he "had friends who could produce kilos of cocaine." Cunningham introduced Barnes to Stevenson and Stevenson's cousin, Albert Brown. Stevenson said he wanted to buy five kilos. Barnes said he would need to find out the details—such as the price, the supplier, and the time and place of the transaction—from "his people" and then arrange another meeting.

The next day, Barnes confessed to Cunningham that he was "having problems connecting with the people that he gets his answers from" and suggested they cruise the neighborhood to try to find "the person that [they] were looking for." Barnes explained that his suppliers would not allow him to deliver the cocaine and that the cocaine would be delivered "personally" by these suppliers. Barnes and Cunningham drove around Lynwood until Barnes pointed out defendant and said, "That's him over there." Barnes stopped the car and got out to talk to defendant while Cunningham stayed in the car. When Barnes returned from talking with defendant, he told Cunningham that "things are going to work out." Barnes called Stevenson, told him he could supply four kilos (instead of the five requested), and asked where he wanted the transaction to take place. After Barnes hung up, he told Cunningham that Stevenson had asked to meet the next day at a gas station in the Crenshaw area. Cunningham was to receive $8,000 for his role in introducing the parties, and an additional $500 per kilo from Stevenson if it worked out well.

Cunningham, Stevenson, Brown, and Barnes waited at the gas station the next day, but no one showed up with the drugs. The principals then arranged to meet at 11:00 p.m. the next night, May 24, 1988, at a 7-Eleven in Monterey Park.

When Cunningham arrived at the 7-Eleven, Stevenson and Brown were sitting in Stevenson's black dually truck. After Barnes drove up in his BMW, defendant and Hicks arrived in defendant's Volkswagen Beetle. Defendant spoke first to Barnes and then to Stevenson. It appeared to Cunningham that defendant was directing Barnes in the transaction. Stevenson told defendant that it was not "cool" to conduct the transaction in the parking lot and suggested they go instead to the nearby Best Western motel. After Hicks transferred a plastic shopping bag of wrapped packages from defendant's Beetle to Barnes's BMW, defendant and Hicks got in Barnes's car, Cunningham got in his Jeep, and they all followed Stevenson to the motel. Barnes obtained a key from the motel office, opened the room, and entered it. Cunningham, Stevenson, and Brown (who carried a bottle of Clorox bleach to test the purity of the cocaine) followed.

Barnes went back outside to see what defendant and Hicks were doing. They said they wanted to see the money, so Stevenson called his "runner," Maribelle Santiago, and asked her to come to the motel. (Stevenson had previously given Santiago a black nylon tennis bag with $57,000 in cash.)

When Santiago drove up, Stevenson and defendant walked up to her car. Defendant said he wanted to see the money. Stevenson said he would show it to him and unzipped the bag. Stevenson tossed one bundle of cash—$5,000—into Maribelle's car and took the bag, saying, "Go around. I'll call you to come back."

When Stevenson entered the room, Cunningham asked, "Is our girl here?" Stevenson replied that he had sent her back. A short time later, defendant and Hicks entered the room. Defendant was carrying the shopping bag with yellow wrapped packages inside. He placed the bag on the dresser near the Clorox bottle. Barnes and Brown set to work to test the cocaine, while defendant and Hicks stood near the door.

Before the test could be completed, Cunningham heard gunfire. He immediately rolled off the bed onto the floor. Stevenson screamed and landed on top of Cunningham. Cunningham heard two quick shots, then six to eight more shots, followed by the sound of footsteps running out the door. Stevenson got up and exited the room, leaving blood on Cunningham's shirt. When Cunningham got up, he saw Brown sprawled halfway off the bed and Barnes on the floor. Both had been shot. He went to the door to look for Stevenson and saw Barnes's BMW leaving the motel driveway instead. Cunningham went back in the room to gather up his ring and his car keys and drove home in his Jeep. Before leaving, in "a kind of panic," he dropped the yellow wrapped packages into the trash can in the room. Cunningham figured that if the shooters had left the packages in the room, they did not contain cocaine.

Cunningham was correct. Police testing revealed that the powder in the wrapped packages did not contain any controlled substance.

Meanwhile, Brett Johansen, who had been picking up some groceries at the nearby Hughes Market, heard four "muffled booms" and, shortly thereafter, saw Stevenson run out of the motel parking lot. Stevenson was yelling "Somebody help me. Please help me," and trying to flag down a car for help. Johansen also saw two African-American men in a silver BMW, tires screeching, come out of the motel driveway towards Stevenson. Johansen, who was across Emerson Avenue, backed up the hill behind the water machines to watch the events unfold. The intersection was very well lit, and the water machines did not block his view at all.

Some cars slowed down as though to help Stevenson, but they sped up and fled when they saw what was going on. The BMW drove into oncoming traffic on Emerson Avenue to chase Stevenson and try to cut him off. Stevenson reversed field and fled, but the BMW executed a 180-degree turn and followed.

When a yellow station wagon slowed down, Stevenson ran up to the driver's window and asked for help. However, the BMW came sliding alongside the station wagon, practically pinning Stevenson in between. The passenger exited the BMW, with his gun in the air. The station wagon then took off, and Stevenson ran away again. The passenger got back in the BMW, which continued the pursuit. When the BMW cut Stevenson off again, he ran into a used car lot, which had a 12-foot fence at the back. The passenger once again exited the BMW and followed Stevenson into the used car lot. Stevenson pleaded, "Please don't kill me." His shoulders were slumped, and it appeared to Johansen that he had given up. The passenger reached out with his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
757 cases
  • People v. Reed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 7, 2018
    ...at trial, so the responsibility fell to defense counsel to protest any objectionable testimony. (See People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 894, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 [A defendant must object to allegedly inadmissible evidence to preserve the claim.].) Indeed it is not inconceiv......
  • People v. Tran
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 2013
    ...( People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589, fn. 5, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093 ). (See also People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 874–875, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 [statutory right to a separate proceeding on the prior-murder-conviction special-circumstance allegation].)......
  • People v. Penunuri, S095076
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2018
    ...755 P.2d 960.) Nor does asking a question to which an objection is sustained constitute misconduct. ( People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 864, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981.) As noted, the trial court agreed to permit Levsen to interpret a photograph depicting the "signs that we see ......
  • People v. Howard, S050583
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 16, 2010
    ...that Torrence's testimony identifying the weapon was sufficiently credible to present to the jury. (See People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 890-891 [38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981].) Defendant complains that the court failed to weigh the prejudicial effect of the evidence against its ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Opening statement
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...an oath to evaluate the evidence impartially. Save any disparaging epithets for the closing argument. CASES People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 839, 863, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149. Defendant was not prejudiced by the prose-cutor’s argumentative opening statement. The court sustained objections t......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§3.5.2(1)(b); §3.6 People v. Hinman, 253 Cal. App. 2d 896, 61 Cal. Rptr. 609 (2d Dist. 1967)—Ch. 4-A, §3.2.2(2)(b)[2] People v. Hinton, 37 Cal. 4th 839, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 (2006)—Ch. 3-B, §8.2.1; Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(a) People v. Hirata, 175 Cal. App. 4th 1499, 96 Cal. Rptr. 3......
  • Character and habit
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...convictions for similar conduct have the potential for prejudice, this factor alone does not compel exclusion. People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 839, 888, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149. When no other felony convictions are available for impeachment, even convictions for identical conduct may be ad......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...3d 619, §4:160 Hinson v. Clairemont Community Hospital (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1110, 267 Cal. Rptr. 503, §11:10 Hinton, People v. (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 839, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149, §§5:80, 11:10, 17:150 Hinton, People v. (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 655, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437, §22:140 Hishmeh, People......
  • 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