People v. Houston

Decision Date19 September 2012
Docket NumberNo. S035190.,S035190.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Eric Christopher HOUSTON, Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David H. Schwartz, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Harry Joseph Colombo and Julie A. Hokans, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

LIU, J.

A jury convicted defendant Eric Christopher Houston of the first degree murders of Robert Brens, Judy Davis, Beamon Hill, and Jason White (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189; further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), and found true a multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also convicted defendant of the attempted murders of Wayne Boggess, Patricia Collazo, Danita Gipson, Donald Graham, Thomas Hinojosai, John Kaze, Sergio Martinez, Jose Rodriguez, Rachel Scarberry, and Mireya Yanez (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664); and found true allegations that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated (§ 664); that defendant personally used a firearm in committing the murders and attempted murders (§ 12022.5); and that, except as to Graham, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in committing the attempted murders (§ 12022.7). The jury further convicted defendant of assault with a firearm on Joshua Hendrickson, Bee Moua, and Tracy Young (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and false imprisonment for the purpose of protection from arrest (§ 210.5). After a sanity trial, the jury found defendant to be sane; after a penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the special circumstance finding and the automatic motion to modify the penalty verdict (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), and sentenced him to death on the murder counts, life imprisonment on the attempted murder counts, and a determinate sentence on the remaining counts and enhancements.

Appeal to this court is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I.
A. Guilt Phase

On May 1, 1992, while armed with a shotgun and a rifle, defendant entered the high school he had last attended in 1989, shot and killed four people, and wounded several others. Defendant then held approximately 80 to 90 students hostage for about eight hours before surrendering. Defendant attacked the school because one of his former teachers had given him a failing grade, which, according to defendant, caused him to not graduate and to lose his job, and also caused his girlfriend to leave him. At trial, defendant also accused this former teacher of having molested him.

1. Prosecution Evidence

On several occasions in early 1992, defendant and his best friend, David Rewerts, discussed going to Lindhurst High School and shooting on the school grounds; in at least one such discussion, defendant said he would like to shoot a couple of people at the school. Defendant read to Rewerts passages from a book on military tactics and police procedures. Defendant owned a shotgun, two .22–caliber semiautomatic rifles, and another firearm. Rewerts had gone target shooting with defendant. According to Rewerts, defendant could cock his pump-action shotgun with one arm.

Defendant lived with his mother and older half brother. On the morning of May 1, 1992, defendant waited outside his home for the mail carrier to deliver his unemployment check and left after the check arrived. Between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., defendant went to three different stores looking for a specific type of shotgun ammunition, and he ultimately purchased No. 4 buckshot ammunition for a shotgun, .22–caliber ammunition, and an ammunition pouch. A clerk testified that defendant had a shopping list with him.

Although the precise sequence of the day's events is somewhat unclear, about 1:50 p.m., a teacher at Lindhurst High School saw someone, later identified as defendant, walking “with a determined stride” toward building C. Defendant wore a camouflage vest with pockets full of shotgun shells, two bandoliers full of ammunition, and a full ammunition belt. He carried a 12–gauge shotgun, had slung over his back a .22–caliber rifle with the butt sawed off, and wore a canteen on his belt. The teacher asked defendant if he had a permit for the shotgun he was carrying. He looked at her, did not respond, and continued walking toward the building.

Defendant entered building C, walked into classroom C–108, pointed his shotgun at Rachel Scarberry, a student, and shot her in the chest. Defendant then shot Robert Brens, a teacher, who ultimately died of chest wounds. Defendant walked towards Brens's fallen body, turned around, and shot student Judy Davis in the face and upper chest, killing her. Defendant then shot at Thomas Hinojosai, a student, as he dove away; the blast hit him in the ear and the shoulder. Tracy Young, a student, dove to the floor after defendant's first shot, but was hit in the foot by one of the shots.

Defendant left the classroom, continued down the hallway, and fired three times into classroom C–105, injuring three students: Jose Rodriguez was struck in the feet; Patricia Collazo was struck in the right knee; and Mireya Yanez was struck in the knees. Defendant then went to the doorway of classroom C–107 and shot and killed Jason White, a student. Defendant at some point passed by classroom C–109, saw student Sergio Martinez hiding in the corner, and shot at him. Martinez attempted to move away but was hit in the left arm.

At some point during the shootings, Joshua Hendrickson, a student in classroom C–204 on the second floor, heard the shots, left the classroom, looked over the railing, and saw defendant on the first floor. Defendant saw Hendrickson and shot at him. Hendrickson retreated into the classroom.

Around this time, Danita Gipson, a student in classroom C–110, heard the shots and left the classroom to investigate. John Kaze, a substitute teacher, followed her. Gipson walked down the hallway and saw defendant. Defendant saw Gipson and aimed at her. She attempted to run away but was shot in the buttocks. Gipson fell to the ground, got up, and then ran back to classroom C–110. Defendant walked toward Kaze with “a slight smile on his face and a spring to his step.” Kaze attempted to return to classroom C–110, but before he could do so, defendant shot him in the face, shoulder, and neck. Kaze retreated into the classroom. Wayne Boggess, a student in classroom C–110, started to leave the classroom but failed to respond to a cry for everyone to get down and instead stood in the doorway as if “in a daze.” Defendant shot Boggess in the face. Defendant then walked toward classroom C–102.

The teacher in classroom C–102 heard the shots, went to the hallway, and yelled to Donald Graham, the teacher in classroom C–101, “911. Man with a gun. Shots fired.” Graham leaned out the doorway and asked the other teacher to repeat himself. Defendant shot at Graham and hit him in the forearm, and Graham retreated into classroom C–101. Defendant reloaded, went to classroom C–102, and made eye contact with a female student inside. Beamon Hill, another student in the classroom, yelled, “No,” and pushed her to the floor. Defendant shot Hill in the head, killing him, and walked away.

At some point during the shootings, Bee Moua, a student in classroom C–104, tried to leave the room. As Moua was getting up from his desk, defendant fired two shots into the classroom from the hallway. Moua and the other students in the room dropped to the floor and stayed there.

Defendant headed up a stairway, entered classroom C–204, told the teacher to leave, and ordered the approximately 24 students to get to one side of the room. Defendant ordered the students to barricade the doorway with a bookshelf. At defendant's command, a student went to classroom C–104 and told the students in that room to join the others in classroom C–204, promising that if they did, defendant would not shoot them. They complied. Students hiding in the library and other classrooms were similarly ordered to classroom C–204. The teachers were ordered to leave the building. Eventually there were 80 to 90 students in classroom C–204. Defendant assigned four to six students to different positions in the building to act as lookouts.

Using the school's intercom system, defendant contacted law enforcement personnel and threatened to shoot people if the school bells were not turned off. Defendant told law enforcement personnel that Brens had flunked him and that he had been fired from his job because he did not have a high school diploma. Defendant made similar statements to the students in the room, saying Brens had “ruined his life” and he was going to make Brens “pay.” Defendant also said his girlfriend had left him. Defendant blamed Brens and the school system, and wanted to “make a point” and ensure that other teachers did not repeat this mistake.

Defendant told the students he had previously reconnoitered the school. Defendant also said he had placed gasoline around the building and would ignite it if his plan did not work. Defendant told the students that he had studied police tactics as well as the Penal Code, so he was aware of the potential sentence he faced.

Defendant sent a student to retrieve a radio. Defendant appeared relieved when the radio newscast announced no one had been killed, but he appeared surprised when it reported that he had shot people. Defendant later admitted that he had shot Brens “in the ass,” and then smiled. Defendant told the students he had not intended to kill anyone.

Defendant asked the students if they had to use the restroom, and many responded that they di...

To continue reading

Request your trial
743 cases
  • People v. Denard
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 3 Diciembre 2015
    ...as to leave no doubt that the jury would have reached the same result in the absence of the error. (See People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1223, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 281 P.3d 799 ["given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt," errors harmless under Chapman or People v. Watso......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 17 Enero 2017
    ...misconduct on appeal, unless objection could not have cured the prejudice or would have been futile. (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1220, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 281 P.3d 799.) Here, the sole objection made was the motion for mistrial after the cross-examination of Detective Matute......
  • People v. McCarrick, A136822
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Noviembre 2016
    ...whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner." (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 281 P.3d 799 ; see also People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 677, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 833, 286 P.3d 754 [in considering ......
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 Mayo 2021
    ...there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner." ( People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 [144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 281 P.3d 799].) When a defendant takes the stand, denies guilt and implicates a codefendant in a joint trial, "a trial court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Housley, 6 Cal. App. 4th 947, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431 (1st Dist. 1992)—Ch. 2, §11.1.1(1)(j); Ch. 4-A, §7; §7.3.2 People v. Houston, 54 Cal. 4th 1186, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716, 281 P.3d 799 (2012)—Ch. 2, §10.1.1(2)(b) People v. Hovarter, 44 Cal. 4th 983, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 299, 189 P.3d 300 (2008)......
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...evidence to contradict defendant’s insistence he committed no crimes other than those described to the jury. People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 1186, 1223, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716. Prosecutor committed misconduct when he asked the jury to take note of the defendant’s failure to cry during p......
  • Disqualification of judges and judicial conduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...not forfeit the claim on appeal if an objection would not have cured the prejudice or would have been futile. People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 1186, 1220, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716. An objection is not required when it appears that the prejudicial effect is so great that an instruction to d......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrup Grumman Systems Corp. (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 1166, 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 53, §15:10 Houston, People v. (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 1186, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716, §§3:10, 17:150, 19:140, 21:70 Hovarter, People v. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 983, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 299, §§9:120, 9:150 Howar......
  • 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