People v. Miles

Citation9 Cal.5th 513,464 P.3d 611,263 Cal.Rptr.3d 144
Decision Date28 May 2020
Docket NumberS086234
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Johnny Duane MILES, Defendant and Appellant.

9 Cal.5th 513
464 P.3d 611
263 Cal.Rptr.3d 144

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Johnny Duane MILES, Defendant and Appellant.

S086234

Supreme Court of California.

May 28, 2020


Cliff Gardner and Catherine A. White, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Sherrilyn A. Ifill, Samuel Spital, Kristen A. Johnson, Christopher Kemmitt and Daniel S. Harawa for NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens, Ronald A. Jakob and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by GROBAN, J.

263 Cal.Rptr.3d 158
9 Cal.5th 521

On March 17, 1999, a jury in San Bernardino County convicted defendant Johnny Duane Miles of burglary and first degree murder, first degree forcible rape, second degree robbery, and false imprisonment by violence of Nancy Willem. The jury found

464 P.3d 623

true the special circumstances that Willem was killed during the commission of the burglary, rape, and robbery ( Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17) )1 and that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture ( § 190.2, subd. (a)(18) ). The jury also convicted defendant of 10 additional counts related to two separate incidents and found true the enhancement allegations relating to those counts. Following the penalty phase, the jury reached a verdict of death. After denying defendant's motion to modify the verdicts (§ 190.4, subd. (e)), the trial court sentenced defendant to death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

9 Cal.5th 522

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Guilt Phase

1. Prosecution Case

This case arises from three separate incidents occurring in February 1992: (1) the murder, rape, robbery, and false imprisonment by violence of Nancy Willem and the burglary preceding her death; (2) the rape, robbery, false imprisonment by violence, and penetration by a foreign object of Christine C.; and (3) the robbery and false imprisonment by violence of Melvin Osburn and the rape, robbery, false imprisonment by violence, and penetration by a foreign object of Carole D.

a. Nancy Willem

On February 4, 1992, Nancy Willem did not come home from work at the Behavioral Health Services Clinic in Rialto. That evening, her roommate, Kristen Schutz, started calling the clinic, but the clinic's phone lines were busy. When Schutz was not able to reach Willem, Schutz drove to the clinic. After entering the building through an unlocked back door, she found the door to the clinic ajar.

As she entered the clinic, she saw the reception area had been ransacked. She followed the blood on the floor from the reception area into one of the offices. There, she found Willem's naked body between a couch and a coffee table. There was a telephone cord tied to her wrist and a sweater wrapped around her neck. There was also a handwritten note found on top of her abdomen that read: "Feed the poor. Down with the goverenment [sic ]."

Schutz tried to call the police but realized that the telephone cords were missing. Once she reconnected one of the cords, she called 911. The police arrived and pronounced Willem dead on the scene. After securing the area and obtaining consent to search the clinic, the police collected blood and other bodily fluids from the reception area and office where Willem's body was found. The police also recorded a video depicting the crime scene, which was played for the jury.

Dr. Nenita Duazo subsequently performed the autopsy on Willem's body. Willem's injuries were extensive. She had multiple lacerations of her scalp and forehead, a fractured jaw, a missing tooth, redness in her vagina, and a circular area that appeared to be a cigarette burn on her chest. She had bruising of her face, chest, back, arms, and legs, which, according

263 Cal.Rptr.3d 159

to Dr. Duazo, indicated that Willem was alive when her injuries were inflicted.

9 Cal.5th 523

Internally, Willem had eight broken ribs, a tear in her left lung, two lacerations of her liver, and hemorrhage in her brain. These injuries were likely caused by the application of substantial and multiple instances of force while Willem was still alive. Willem also had hemorrhage in her eyes and neck, as well as a broken bone and broken cartilage in her neck, all of which indicated that she was manually strangled before her death. Dr. Duazo testified that Willem was killed by a combination of blunt force injuries and manual strangulation.

i. Physical evidence

Several witnesses testified regarding the collection and analysis of blood and other bodily fluids found at the crime scene. In particular, two criminalists from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Crime Laboratory, David Stockwell and Donald Jones, testified concerning their analysis.

Stockwell testified that he conducted a serological analysis on items recovered from the crime scene. He concluded that the nonvictim

464 P.3d 624

blood and semen from the crime scene came from an individual who was likely African-American and a type AB secretor, which he defined as someone whose blood type is secreted into other bodily fluids. He testified that the genetic markers found in the nonvictim blood and semen would be expected in approximately one in 333 million African-American men. Following this analysis, he received a blood sample from defendant, who is African-American. Stockwell testified that defendant is a secretor and his genetic markers matched the genetic markers found in the nonvictim blood and semen recovered from the crime scene.

Next, Jones testified that he conducted a DNA analysis on the samples recovered from the crime scene. He concluded that defendant's DNA profile matched the DNA profile from the crime scene. He testified that the DNA profile from the crime scene would be expected in approximately one in 180 million African-Americans (or one in 280 million African-Americans using his lab's updated match criteria from around the time of the trial).

ii. Other evidence

On the night of Willem's death, her ATM card was used to withdraw $1,160 from an ATM in Pomona and another $300 from an ATM in Glendora. An employee from the bank's investigations unit testified that ATM surveillance photographs showed an individual wearing glasses and a "Red Dragon" hat at the time of the transaction in Glendora. The individual's features could not be discerned from the photographs.

A couple of months after Willem's death, the police briefly stopped an individual who identified himself as defendant and was walking no more than

9 Cal.5th 524

half of a mile from Willem's office. During the stop, the police documented that defendant was an African-American man who was 25 years old, six feet, six inches tall, and 210 pounds.

As to the handwritten note found at the crime scene, the prosecution offered testimony by expert Glen Owens. He examined the note found on Willem's body and certain inmate forms written by defendant. He concluded that there were some indications that the writer of the inmate forms may have written the crime scene note but it was not definitive. An investigator testified that when defendant was served with a court order requiring him to provide a handwriting exemplar, he refused to comply.

An officer at the Rialto Police Department testified that during a search of defendant's

263 Cal.Rptr.3d 160

car, the police found a note in it. That note read in part: "We'll be wiped out by the governement [sic ]." The note contained a misspelling of the word government, which was similar to the misspelling in the note found on Willem's body.

b. Christine C.

Christine C. was working alone at the Desert Communities United Way office in Victorville on the evening of February 25, 1992 when a man forced his way into the office. Christine C. described the man as African-American, over six feet tall, in his twenties, and of "slim build."2

The man was wearing a ski-type mask and holding a silver handgun. Pointing the gun at her, he demanded money. She gave him cash from her purse and said that the office had no other money. He then ordered her to lie down on the floor while he searched the office. Once he returned, he directed her into a conference room, tied her arms behind her back with a telephone cord, and took her jewelry. When she looked at him, he told her, "Don't look at me." He also took an ATM card from her purse and asked her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...Jurors R.T. and T.P.That said, the trial court certainly "could have done more to make a fuller record." ( People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 540, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 144, 464 P.3d 611.) For example, the trial court could have explicitly brought to bear its general awareness of questionnaire......
  • People v. Poore
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 27, 2022
    ...141, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 471 P.3d 509 ( Suarez ) [" ‘I am not sure if I could do this or not’ "]; People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 564–565, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 144, 464 P.3d 611 ( Miles ) [" ‘I don't know if I could follow the law. There's ... just a good chance that I would or I wouldn't......
  • People v. Tran
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 29, 2022
    ...that had not been presented in court falls within the general category of "juror misconduct." ’ " ( People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 601, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 144, 464 P.3d 611 ( Miles ); see also § 1181.) To determine whether juror misconduct involving jurors receiving information from ext......
  • People v. Mataele
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2022
    ...even though it requires the [alternate] jurors to accept the guilt phase verdicts"].) Most recently, in People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 604, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 144, 464 P.3d 611, we stated: "We have made clear that ‘[a]s a matter of law, the penalty phase jury must conclusively accept [t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...597, §§1:170, 4:80 Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831, §18:50 Miles, People v. (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 513, 263 Cal. Rptr. 3d 144, §2:160 Miley, People v. (1984) 158 Cal. App. 3d 25, 204 Cal. Rptr. 347, §13:50 Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Co......
  • Jury selection
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...if you have any suspicion that a juror may be unfavorable to your side, accept any offered stipulation. CASES People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 513, 562–570, 263 Cal. Rptr. 3d 144. In a capital murder case, prospective jurors are not necessarily substantially impaired by their recognition t......
  • Chapter 4 - §4. Attorney-client privilege
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...is to foster full disclosure to counsel by clients without fear that the information will be conveyed to others. People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 589; People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 96; Los Angeles Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Ct. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 292; People v. Gionis......
  • 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
    ...that a person has committed a crime or that contraband or evidence will be found in a particular place. People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 576; People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal.5th 632, 659; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 989; see Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; People v. Spencer ......
  • 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