People v. Krebs

• Decision Date: 21 November 2019
• Docket Number: S099439
• Citation: 452 P.3d 609,255 Cal.Rptr.3d 95,8 Cal.5th 265
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rex Allan KREBS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

8 Cal.5th 265
452 P.3d 609
255 Cal.Rptr.3d 95

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Rex Allan KREBS, Defendant and Appellant.

S099439

Supreme Court of California.

November 21, 2019

Neil B. Quinn, Ventura, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon, Sharlene A. Honnaka, A. Scott Hayward and Kenneth C. Byrne, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 110

8 Cal.5th 273

A jury convicted defendant Rex Allan Krebs of the first degree murder of Rachel Newhouse and Aundria Crawford ( Pen. Code, § 187 ),¹ one count of kidnapping Newhouse to commit rape and one count of kidnapping Crawford to commit rape and sodomy (§ 209, subd. (b)), one count of rape by force of Newhouse and two counts of rape by force of Crawford (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), one count of sodomy by force of Crawford (§ 286, subd. (c)), and one count of first degree burglary (§ 459). The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed multiple murders, that the murder of Newhouse was committed while engaged in kidnapping and rape, and that the murder of Crawford was committed while engaged in kidnapping, rape, and sodomy. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17).) Defendant admitted prior convictions for rape, sodomy, assault to commit rape, residential burglary, and felony grand theft. The court found the prior convictions to be true.

Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned verdicts of death for each of the two murder convictions. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to modify the death penalty verdict and his motion for a new trial. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) The court sentenced defendant to death for each of the murder convictions. It also sentenced him to a total of 166 years to life with the possibility of parole for the other offenses and enhancements, a sentence it stayed pursuant to section

452 P.3d 622

654. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Evidence at the Guilt Phase

1. Investigation prior to defendant’s confession

Rachel Newhouse, a student at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, was last seen on November 12, 1998, at about 11:30 p.m., in Tortilla Flats, a restaurant and bar in San Luis Obispo. Blood drops were found an hour or so later on the Jennifer Street Bridge, a pedestrian bridge that Newhouse would have crossed if she walked home from Tortilla Flats. Samples taken from blood recovered from the bridge and a nearby parking lot matched blood samples from Newhouse’s parents.

8 Cal.5th 274

Aundria Crawford, a student at Cuesta College who lived in San Luis Obispo, spoke with a friend by telephone until 2:46 a.m. on March 11, 1999.² Crawford missed an appointment and failed to respond to texts on March 11, and an investigation begun the next day failed to locate her.

Defendant’s parole officer, David Zaragoza, thought there were similarities between the description in a newspaper article of the abduction of Crawford and defendant’s prior crimes. In mid-March, he visited defendant at his residence. When defendant came out to meet Zaragoza, he was walking as if in pain, and he was holding his rib area. Defendant stated that he had hurt his ribs when he fell off a wall into some firewood, but Zaragoza was suspicious because he did not see any injuries to defendant’s hands or arms. Zaragoza reported his suspicions to the lead investigator of the Crawford abduction.

Two days later, Zaragoza and other agents conducted a parole search of defendant’s

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 111

residence. Among the items seized was an eight-ball keychain. Zaragoza also found BBs. One of defendant’s parole conditions was that he was not allowed to possess objects resembling a firearm. The next day, Zaragoza seized a BB gun at defendant’s place of employment and caused defendant to be arrested and transported to the San Luis Obispo County jail.

Larry Hobson, an investigator with the County of San Luis Obispo District Attorney’s Office, interviewed defendant a day after his arrest. At this point, defendant had been arrested for violating his parole by possessing a simulated firearm and drinking alcohol. When Hobson asked defendant if he had any idea why he was being interviewed, defendant stated he assumed it related to the disappearance of the two victims, because defendant was on parole for rape and had a prior sex offense. He did not recall where he was the day Newhouse disappeared. However, defendant said he stayed home all night on March 10, the night of Crawford’s disappearance. At about 8:00 a.m. the next day, he walked to a woodpile, and his landlord’s daughter, Debra Wright, stopped and talked to him briefly. He said he had slipped on some lattice work and fallen into the woodpile, injuring his ribs.

Defendant denied ever driving down Crawford’s street or seeing the victims except on fliers posted around San Luis Obispo. Hobson asked where defendant had acquired the eight-ball keychain found during the parole search, and he said he found it on the yard while in Soledad prison in 1996. In response to Hobson’s telling defendant that he might have to question him again, defendant said he was willing to do anything to prove that he was not responsible for the abductions, and he gave Hobson permission to search his vehicle and his residence.

8 Cal.5th 275

A few days later, a search of defendant’s truck disclosed duct tape, binoculars, and a bottle of stain remover. Also, some of the carpet had been cut out, and one of the jump seats was missing.

In early April, Hobson interviewed defendant a second time. Defendant gave an account of his whereabouts on March 11 that was partly inconsistent with his prior statements. When asked why someone would identify him or his truck in the vicinity of Crawford’s house, he stated he had driven down Crawford’s street two or three times. With respect to the eight-ball keychain that

452 P.3d 623

defendant claimed to have found in 1996, Hobson asserted that it had not been manufactured until 1998. Defendant responded, " ‘that’s strange.’ "

Five days later, a search of defendant’s home led to the discovery of the jump seat from his truck. The seat had blood stains on it.

On April 21, Hobson interviewed defendant a third time.³ Defendant again had difficulty recalling what he did on March 11. Hobson and defendant discussed defendant’s prior sex crimes, and defendant admitted that he fantasized about abducting women but claimed to have "worked through" that. Hobson then showed defendant the eight-ball keychain and said it belonged to Crawford. Defendant denied the keychain was the one that had been found in his home. Hobson told defendant that the police had found the missing jump seat, and that there were traces of Newhouse’s blood on it. Defendant then stopped talking for about 15 minutes while

255 Cal.Rptr.3d 112

Hobson kept up a monologue. Hobson asked defendant to take him to the victims, and defendant stated he did not want to help Hobson at that time. Hobson eventually returned defendant to the county jail.

2. Defendant’s confession

On April 22, Hobson returned to the jail, and correctional officers brought defendant to an employee breakroom to meet him. Some minutes into the conversation, defendant asked what Hobson wanted him to say, and Hobson said he wanted the truth. Defendant responded, "okay" and said that he wanted to talk somewhere else. Before transporting defendant from the jail and after giving him Miranda warnings, Hobson asked defendant if he was responsible for the disappearance and death of Newhouse and Crawford. Defendant responded, "yes." Hobson then took defendant to the police

8 Cal.5th 276

department, where the ensuing interrogation was recorded. The jury was shown the videotape, during which defendant described what he had done to the victims.⁴

Defendant stated that starting at about 8:30 p.m. on November 12, 1998, he drank six or seven shots of whiskey. At about midnight, he saw Newhouse walking down a street in San Luis Obispo. He told Hobson he had a premonition that Newhouse would walk across a bridge, so he parked his truck and walked onto the bridge. As Newhouse walked behind him on the bridge, defendant turned around and hit her on the jaw with his fist. When she screamed, defendant picked her up and...