People v. Jackson

Decision Date26 August 1996
Docket NumberNo. S010723,S010723
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 920 P.2d 1254, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6358, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,429 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Noel JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Fern M. Laethem, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Stephen Matchett and Susan Ten Kwan, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster, William M. Wood and Laura Whitcomb Halgren, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

Defendant Noel Jackson was found guilty of the murder of Sonja Niles, as well as guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. The jury found true enhancements of his sentence for the possession and use of a firearm. (Pen.Code, §§ 12022, subd. (a); 12022.5.) 1 It also found true one special circumstance--that "[t]he murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain." (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1).) At the penalty phase, it fixed defendant's sentence at death. The trial court sentenced defendant accordingly. This appeal is automatic under section 1239, subdivision (b).

We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed in its entirety.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Guilt Phase

Defendant was tried with codefendant Michael Niles before two separate juries. According to the testimony of Anthony Piper, Niles, an old friend, contacted Piper on December 13, 1984. Niles told Piper that he wanted to have his wife killed and that he would be willing to pay $5,000 to the person who would accomplish that task. Niles said he wanted her murdered because she had "messed with him when he was playing basketball" (Niles had been a college and, briefly, professional basketball player) and that she had "sent his brother to prison." Piper asked Niles where he would get $5,000 and Niles replied that his wife had an insurance policy for $100,000. He would pay the murderer from the proceeds of the policy after it was cashed in. Piper stated that he was not interested. Niles offered to pay Piper $500 if he knew someone who would undertake the murder. Piper said he did not know any "hit men." Eventually Piper and Niles rode around Piper's neighborhood in Los Angeles and encountered defendant on the street together with a man named Ernie Sanders. Piper introduced Niles to defendant and told defendant that Niles wanted to discuss the killing of his wife. After talking with defendant, Niles drove away in search of a gun. He returned an hour later, stating that he was unable to locate a gun and asking defendant and Piper if they knew where he could get one. Piper observed Niles and defendant conferring and saw them eventually drive off in Niles's car.

Later that night, Norma Clark, a resident of Corona in Riverside County, was sitting outside of her house in her car, attempting to prevent the theft of her Christmas lights. She lived down the street from Niles and his wife, Sonja Niles. The street lights were on. As Clark sat in her car in the driveway, she saw a red car come down the street and park across from her house. The car lights were off. Clark had seen the car before. She noticed one person in the driver's seat but no one else. Two or three minutes later, Clark heard a noise up the street that sounded like a gunshot or a light bulb popping. She looked toward the direction of the noise and saw running down the street a man whom she estimated to be about six feet three or four inches tall, and who wore light-colored pants. He ran directly to the passenger side of the waiting car and climbed in. The car departed with its lights still off.

Shortly thereafter, a Corona police officer discovered Sonja Niles, dressed in a correctional officer's uniform, lying dead near where Clark had witnessed the above described events. She had been killed by a shotgun, the muzzle of which had been pressed against the back of her head, blasting a four- to five-inch hole through her forehead. The force thrust blood, hair and brain matter onto a fence 32 feet away.

At 10:50 p.m., the Corona Police Department received a telephone call from Niles. He said he had picked up his wife from work at 9:15 p.m. and had gone to Los Angeles to see his brother. He said he had been calling her from Los Angeles, but had been unable to reach her. The dispatcher was instructed by Corona Police Department Detective Dave Stewart, who was investigating Sonja Niles's murder, to tell Niles to report for questioning, either at his home or at the police department. Niles drove up to his home in a red Toyota two-door automobile. Norma Clark identified that car as the one she had seen leave the scene after she had heard the gunshot. The police asked Clark to observe Niles, and she stated that he looked to be the man whom she saw running down the street because he had long legs and was tall, but that he was wearing dark pants, unlike the light-colored pants she had observed on the man she had seen running.

Detective Stewart arrested Niles because of the suspicious nature of his phone call, his apparently deceptive behavior, and Clark's statement. He was taken to the Corona Police Department. Among his effects was a card with the name and phone number of a "No-No," who he claimed during interrogation had murdered Sonja Niles. The detectives used a reverse telephone directory to locate the address corresponding to this telephone number.

Two days later, several detectives, including Detective Stewart, went to that address, which was defendant's residence, and were met at the door by defendant's sister, Vicky Barnes. Stewart asked her if "No No" lived there, and she gave defendant's name--"Noel"--and told them he was not home. She attempted to contact defendant by telephoning him at his girlfriend's house and was told that he had stepped out briefly. Stewart asked Barnes if defendant owned a pair of tan-colored pants. She opened the door and began to look through a laundry bag. She removed a pair of khaki pants which were rolled up in a ball. As the pants were unrolled, they revealed large stains of fresh blood and hair in the area between the ankle and the knee on both pant legs, which appeared to greatly surprise Barnes.

After discovering the pants, Barnes received a telephone call from defendant. Stewart spoke to defendant and requested him to return home, although Stewart assured him that he was not a suspect in the murder. When defendant arrived home, Stewart arrested him and advised him of his rights, which he waived. He gave permission to search the bedroom. While the search was being conducted, Stewart questioned defendant. He said he had met Niles on December 13th but denied that he had ever gone to Corona. He said he had been with friends in Los Angeles on the night of the 13th and returned home at 10 p.m. Stewart then showed defendant the khaki pants and asked how he had gotten blood and other matter on them. Defendant responded: "You guys are serious, aren't you?" He then told Stewart a different story: he had met Niles; Niles had told him that he wanted to kill his wife; they had obtained a gun from Ernie Sanders; he and Niles had traveled to Corona together; he had waited at Niles's residence while Niles went to pick up his wife from work at the Department of Corrections; when Niles returned home with his wife, he saw that she was a correctional officer in uniform and informed Niles that he did not want to be involved in the murder; Niles and Sonja Niles argued; he observed her running out of the house with Niles following, and he followed them; Sonja Niles tripped at the curb and fell down on the lawn; Niles then fired the shot that killed her; the blood got on his (defendant's) pants because he was standing by Sonja Niles's head when she fell and was shot. Finally, he and Niles ran together down the street and jumped into the waiting vehicle.

While the search of the apartment was continuing, Stewart asked defendant if the gun that was used for the murder was in his room. Defendant said no. The search soon uncovered under defendant's bed a pump-action shotgun, white tennis shoes, a box of shotgun shells, a towel with powder stains and a left-hand glove. The shoes were stained with blood and brain matter. Defendant was taken to the Corona Police Department, where he made another statement substantially similar to his second statement, except he stated that Niles had told him that his wife was a prison guard before defendant had set eyes on her, and he claimed he had told Niles immediately that he did not want to be involved in the murder. He also stated that Niles had shot Sonja Niles while she was on the ground. He said that Niles drove him back to Los Angeles and that he, Niles, had blood all over him. Defendant took the gun when he was dropped off.

Dr. DeWitt Hunter, who performed the autopsy on Sonja Niles, testified that death was caused by a massive wound to the head consistent with a shotgun blast. The shot traveled from back to front forcing the brain entirely from its cavity. Laceration of the scalp at the back of the head indicated a contact wound, that is, the barrel of the gun was pressed against the victim's head when the shot was fired. Death was instantaneous. Dr. Hunter opined that the presence of blood and other tissue on a six-foot high fence, thirty-two feet from the murder victim's body, was inconsistent with the victim's being prone at the time of the shot, and that she must have been standing erect or nearly erect. He also testified that he examined the pair of pants and the shoes presented by the prosecution and found them to have blood and brain matter on them. He testified as well that Sonja Niles had a bruise on her upper left arm that appeared to have been inflicted within a few minutes to one hour before death...

To continue reading

Request your trial
768 cases
  • People v. Daveggio
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 26, 2018
    ..." ‘may attempt to shift responsibility to each other does not compel severance of their trials [.]’ " ( People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1208, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254.) In any event, there was overwhelming independent evidence against each defendant, dispelling any notion ......
  • People v. Pettigrew
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 2021
    ...have consistently rejected similar challenges to standard flight instructions. For example, in People v Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254, the defendant argued four instructions on consciousness of guilt, including CALJIC No. 2.52 (the precursor to CALCRIM No.......
  • People v. Hunter
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 17, 2003
    ...information designed to verify the existence of such underrepresentation and document its nature and extent." (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1194, 920 P.2d 1254.) In his opening brief appellant states that he was denied access to "most of the information crucial to his claim (e.......
  • People v. Kerley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 2018
    ...that the instructions did not apply to him and it should not infer a consciousness of his guilt"]; People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1225, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254 [any error in giving instruction on fabrication of evidence was harmless because " ‘[a]t worst, there was no ev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Demonstrative evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...made to the use of a demonstrative exhibit and testimony relating to it, the issue may not be raised on appeal. People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1164, 1217, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 49. To clearly preserve an objection for appeal, the opponent should specify the claimed dissimilarity of conditi......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...3d 386 §§2:130, 3:70, 17:140, 21:120 Jackson, People v. (2014) 58 Cal. 4th 724, 168Cal. Rptr. 3d 635, §20:50 Jackson, People v. (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1164, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 49, §§2:70, 16:60 Jackson, People v. (2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 1222, 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 70, §17:60 Jackson, People v. (1993......
  • Jury selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 329, 348, 197 Cal. Rptr. 803. • Persons opposed to the death penalty. People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1164, 1198, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 49. Underrepresentation. In evaluating whether representation of a group is fair and reasonable, courts look to the stat......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...a waiver was voluntary, courts will look at any deception used by the police. See Molano, 7 Cal.5th at 652-53; People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1206; cf. Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 297 (misleading subject into false sense of security by noncoercive actions does not ma......
  • 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