People v. Lewis

Decision Date02 August 2001
Docket NumberNo. S020032.,S020032.
Citation26 P.3d 34,110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272,28 Cal.4th 334
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond Anthony LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Thomas Kallay, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, William G. Prahl, Robert P. Whitlock and Jeffrey D. Firestone, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHIN, J.

A jury convicted defendant Raymond Anthony Lewis of the first degree murder (Pen.Code,1 §§ 187, 189) and robbery (§ 211) of Sandra Simms, and found true the allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon, i.e., a wooden object, to commit the crimes. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant committed the murder in the course of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) Defendant admitted suffering three prior convictions.

After the penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death, and the trial court imposed the sentence. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial or to modify the verdict (§ 1181, subds. 6 & 7), and his automatic application for modification of the verdict. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11; § 1239, subd. (b).) For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. Facts
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution's main witness, Paul Pridgon, testified that he saw defendant repeatedly beat Sandra Simms with a two-by-four wooden board, strangle her, and take money from her person.

On June 6, 1988, the night of the murder, Simms, defendant, and his girlfriend, Michelle Boggs, smoked cocaine at defendant's boardinghouse. Defendant had met Simms approximately a month before, through Boggs. Later that night, Simms gave defendant money to buy more drugs. On his way to buy the drugs, defendant met Paul Pridgon for the first time. Pridgon took him to a drug dealer.

Afterwards, Pridgon took defendant to his apartment, which Pridgon shared with several individuals, where they smoked more drugs. Concerned that defendant may have run off with her money, Simms and Boggs went to look for him. When they found defendant and Pridgon, Simms repeatedly asked where her money was. Defendant said that he would get it, and left with Pridgon. When defendant and Pridgon later arrived at defendant's boardinghouse where Simms and Boggs were waiting, defendant pulled Simms aside and told her that he could buy $100 worth of crack cocaine for $30.

Defendant, Simms, and Pridgon went to buy the crack. Pridgon testified that earlier that evening, defendant had said he was going to knock down a prostitute who he knew had money. Defendant asked Pridgon if he was "down for taking the money." Pridgon answered "yeah," without understanding what defendant had said. When defendant repeated his plan, Pridgon stated, "No. I don't do that kind of stuff." Defendant replied, "Well, I[`ll] do it my damn self."

The trio walked down an alley toward Pridgon's apartment. Defendant grabbed a two-by-four wooden board that he said he would use to hit dogs. As they got close to Pridgon's apartment, defendant swung the two-by-four like a baseball bat at Simms's head. Simms, who was looking in another direction, fell down after the first blow. Defendant struck Simms with the two-by-four approximately six more times. Getting on top of Simms, defendant straddled her waist with his legs, grabbed her throat with his hands, and strangled her. He then ripped her blouse and took money out of her bra.

Defendant threatened Pridgon that he would kill him if he said anything. The two began walking. Defendant gave Pridgon a stainless steel butter knife, which Pridgon threw into a trash can nearby. As they walked onto a main street, defendant threw the two-by-four into a backyard.

After the crime, defendant and Pridgon went back to Pridgon's apartment to smoke drugs that they had just purchased. Pridgon did not tell anyone at his apartment about the murder. Defendant, Pridgon, and Betty Thomas, who lived with Pridgon, left together to get more drugs. As they passed the alley where Simms's body lay, a man told them, "Don't go through the alley because this Black guy done killed a woman."

When Pridgon came back to his apartment, he told Lorene Allen, who was Thomas's mother and also lived with Pridgon, that defendant killed Simms. Allen did not believe him and said he was lying. Although Pridgon wanted to tell the police about the murder, Allen told him, "Don't do that, because you will get yourself in big trouble you can't get out of."

A man driving in the alley first discovered Simms's body. When a Fresno police officer arrived, he found Simms lying dead on her back. There was a pool of blood by her head, along with blood splatters spreading as far as 7 feet 10 inches away from her head. The left side of her face contained a large cut, and her neck had several razor-like cuts. A wood splinter was found in Simms's hair and a small clump of her hair was found by her right side. Simms's blouse was splattered with blood and partially open, with the two top buttons ripped off. Her lace bra contained a $20 bill. Simms's purse contained a check stub from Carl's Jr., a fast-food restaurant where Simms had worked. Employee and bank records showed Simms had cashed her $167.62 paycheck, which she had received the day she was killed.

The morning after the murder, Pridgon told police that defendant had killed Simms. Pridgon led a detective to the following items: the butter knife; the 18to 24-inch-long two-by-four; and the woodpile from which defendant had picked up the two-by-four. The recovered two-by-four, which was chipped on one end, contained traces of human blood. The wood splinter found in Simms's hair fit the chipped end of the two-by-four. Criminologists, however, could not develop usable fingerprints from either the two-by-four or the butter knife, and could not assign a specific phosphoglucomutase (PGM) enzyme to the blood found on the two-by-four.

Defendant was arrested at his boardinghouse. Before being taken to police headquarters, defendant, who was barefoot, asked to put on some shoes. Detective Sanchez, who arrested defendant, stated defendant pointed to a pair of size 10 ladies' white Converse tennis shoes, which Detective Sanchez handed to defendant to put on. Defendant, who was wearing blue sweatpants, also asked for a green jacket hanging on his bed.

Tests on the right tennis shoe revealed the shoe contained human blood with a PGM type of two-plus, two-minus, which matched Simms's blood and that of approximately 2 percent of the population. However, the criminologist could not determine conclusively the source of the blood. Defendant's sweatpants and jacket also had traces of blood, but criminologists could not determine if the blood was human blood. The pathologist confirmed that Simms's injuries were consistent with her being struck by a wooden object, like a two-by-four. He testified that Simms's head and face were struck approximately four to six times. He found multiple injuries only on Simms's face, head, and neck, which included injuries consistent with strangulation. He opined that Simms had been standing when she was first struck on the left side of her jawbone, fracturing her jawbone and rendering her unconscious. She sustained basal skull fractures when she fell to the ground and hit the right side of her head. Simms was alive but unconscious when she was strangled because there were no signs of resistance or struggle. The pathologist determined that strangulation was the main cause of death, with cerebral contusions from the basal skull fractures as a second or contributing cause.

2. Defense Evidence

As his main defense, defendant attacked Pridgon's credibility, and presented evidence suggesting that Pridgon was to some extent involved in the crimes.

Defendant testified on his own behalf. He denied killing or hurting Simms, who was like a mother to him and even called him "son." He further denied being "hooked on" cocaine the night of the killing or needing any money. He last saw Simms when she, defendant, and Pridgon left defendant's boardinghouse for Pridgon's apartment because defendant wanted to pursue a woman who lived with Pridgon. As the three reached Pridgon's apartment, a Black man in a white Cadillac drove up and began talking to Simms. Simms got in the car and told defendant, "Mommy be right back," and said that she would return in 20 to 25 minutes. Simms and the man drove down the alley. When defendant and Pridgon went inside Pridgon's apartment, defendant noted the time was 11:50 p.m.

Defendant attacked the credibility of Pridgon, who was 23 years old at the time of trial. Through expert witnesses, defendant presented evidence that Pridgon suffered from mental disorders, mild mental retardation, and substance abuse. Experts testified that Pridgon's capacity to perceive and recollect Simms's killing was impaired, and that he made up information to fill in gaps in his memory. Defendant claimed that Pridgon imagined that defendant strangled Simms after listening to the pathologist's testimony. Defendant also argued Pridgon suffered from hallucinations, as evidenced from Pridgon's testimony that he heard blood flow from Simms's head, and heard defendant take money from Simms's bra. To further impeach Pridgon's credibility, defendant presented evidence of Pridgon's felony conviction for burglary and his conviction for being under the influence of cocaine. Two investigators who had dealt with Pridgon before believed him to be dishonest and untrustworthy. Based on numerous inconsistencies between Pridgon's testimony at trial and at the preliminary hearing, defendant moved to strike...

To continue reading

Request your trial
187 cases
  • People v. Molano
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 2019
    ...( Ibid . ; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 731–732, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46 ; cf. People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 384, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34.)Chicoine's version of events is both plausible and corroborated by defendant's own later recorded statements. When d......
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 2009
    ...the issue on appeal. (People v. Partida (2006) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765; People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 357, 110 Cal. Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34.) Defendant asserts that the forfeiture rule should not apply, because there is a "heightened need for relia......
  • People v. Windfield
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 2021
    ...instruction on provocation, there was no duty on the part of counsel to request such an instruction. (See People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 363, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34 ; People v. Szarvas (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 511, 526, 191 Cal.Rptr. 117.)Here, the only evidence in the record ......
  • People v. Young
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 25 Julio 2019
    ...its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue delay, prejudice, or confusion.’ " ( People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34.) We review the trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1242......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Relevance and prejudice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...In the absence of a request, however, the court has no duty to instruct the jury. People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 334, 362-363, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272. In its discretion, the court may admit the proffered evidence conditionally, subject to evidence of the preliminary fact being supplied l......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...8:30, 11:10 Lewis, People v. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 415, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588, §§2:70, 9:100 Lewis, People v. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 334, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272, §§6:60, 6:100, 6:130, 6:140, 6:150, 8:20, 14:20 Lewis, People v. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 610, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629, §§2:70, 2:110, 11:10, 22:2......
  • Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...§403(c)(1). In the absence of a request the court has no duty to instruct the jury. People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 334, 362-363, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272. In its discretion, the court may admit a writing conditionally, subject to evidence of its authenticity being shown later in the course......
  • Witness competence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...Mere difficulty in understanding a witness does not render the witness incompetent. People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 334, 361, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272. As long as the witness’ testimony is comparatively coherent, taken as a whole, it is not an abuse of discretion to find that the witness is......
  • 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