People v. Richardson, No. S029588.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtMoreno
Citation43 Cal.4th 959,77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163,183 P.3d 1146
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Keith RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. S029588.
Decision Date22 May 2008
183 P.3d 1146
77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163
43 Cal.4th 959
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Charles Keith RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S029588.
Supreme Court of California.
May 22, 2008.

[183 P.3d 1153]

Richard Jay Moller and Karen Kelly, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Eric L. Christoffersen, Lloyd G. Carter and Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MORENO, J.


Defendant Charles Keith Richardson was convicted by a jury of the murder of April Holley (Pen.Code, § 187, subd. (a)), as to which the jury found true felony-murder special circumstances for burglary, rape, sodomy and lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14. (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury also convicted defendant of residential burglary (Pen.Code, § 459), forcible rape (Pen.Code, § 261, subd. (a)), lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (b)), and sodomy (Pen.Code, § 286, subd. (c)), all of these counts also involving the murder victim, April Holley.1 In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true additional allegations that defendant had suffered prior convictions for a serious felony and a sex offense. (Pen.Code, §§ 667, 667.6, subd. (b).) The jury returned a death verdict for the murder. The trial court declined to modify the verdict (Pen.Code, § 190.4, subd. (e)), and sentenced defendant to death.2 This appeal is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); § 1239, subd. (b).)

We affirm the judgment but, for the reasons given below, remand the case on the issue of restitution. (See People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305-306, 25 Cal. Rptr.3d 337, 106 P.3d 990.)

I. FACTS

A. Guilt Phase

1. Overview of Prosecution Guilt Phase Evidence

The prosecution's theory in this case was that defendant and another man, Steven Brown, raped and sodomized 11-year-old

183 P.3d 1154

April Holley and then drowned her in the bathtub of the trailer where she lived with her mother and older sister, both of whom were absent the night of the murder.3 The evidence with which the prosecution sought to convict defendant consisted of the following: (1) defendant's statement to a witness evincing awareness that the victim, whom he knew, was alone on the night she was murdered; (2) defendant's statements in the immediate aftermath of the murder in which he either admitted killing the victim or revealed details about the murder that had not been released to the public; (3) defendant's flight from the scene the day after the murder; (4) defendant's shifting stories in statements he made to the police culminating in an admission — quickly retracted — that he had committed the murder; (5) defendant's statement to a fellow inmate that he had murdered Holley; (6) evidence that pubic hairs found at the crime scene were consistent with defendant's hair; and (7) Steven Brown's subsequent attempt to commit a similar crime against another victim.

The defense disputed each circumstance and statement that connected defendant to the murder and argued that Brown alone committed the crime.

2. The Events of December 2-3, 1988

On Friday, December 2, 1988, Naomi Holley took her 11-year-old daughter, April, to the home of a family friend, Melanie Lewis, to spend the weekend with Lewis, Lewis's boyfriend Richard Schnabel, and their children. Naomi, April, and Naomi's older daughter, Tammy, lived on West Addie Avenue in a neighborhood just south of the city of Tulare called Matheny Tract. Tammy Holley was in jail that weekend. After dropping April off, Naomi spent the night at the home of friends. On Saturday afternoon, she decided to go to a party in Porterville where she spent Saturday night; she did not tell April of her plans.

At Lewis's residence, meanwhile, a $20 bill belonging to Tawny Schnabel, Richard's daughter, went missing and was found in April's coat pocket. On Saturday, December 3, after the theft was discovered, Lewis decided to take April back to her mother and she and April went looking for Naomi. They went to the Holley residence but no one was home. They also looked for Naomi at the house of the friend with whom she had stayed the previous night, but did not find her. Eventually, Lewis took April back to Lewis's residence. She stopped on the way to pick up her sister, who was supposed to baby-sit while Lewis, Richard Schnabel, and Tawny Schnabel went Christmas shopping that night. After they returned, April biked to the El Rancho Motel to visit her friend Barbara O'Hearn. April arrived about 4:00 p.m. and stayed for an hour before returning to Lewis's residence.

From Lewis's residence, April called her friend, 11-year-old Lisa Matthews, and asked her to come to the Holley residence to spend the night. April pretended that she was talking to her mother. Although Lisa's grandmother refused to allow her to spend the night with April, Lisa agreed to come. Lisa started out for the Holley residence but turned back because it was too cold and foggy. April, meanwhile, got a ride home from Richard Schnabel's two teenage daughters. April arrived at her house between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. She went to the front door, but could not get in so she went around to the back of the house. Sometime after arriving at her home, April went to the house of a neighbor, Lorraine Hughes, and knocked on her door. Hughes was home but did not answer the door. She last saw April walking back in the direction of her own house.

Defendant also lived in Matheny Tract with the Marshall family in the Marshalls' trailer, not far from where April lived.4 Living in the Marshalls' residence was Bob

183 P.3d 1155

Marshall, Sr., his sister Linda Land, his sons, Michael and Bobby Joe Marshall, Jr., and Michael Marshall's girlfriend, Carol Brouchard. Defendant was friendly with April's older sister, Tammy, and had visited her at the Holley residence. Naomi Holley testified that defendant had only been at her house on two occasions and had never spent the night there. Her friends, Roger Rummerfield and Renee Bailey, who were almost daily visitors to her house, testified that defendant had only been in the house two or three times in November and December, 1988. According to Naomi Holley, the last time defendant had been at the Holley residence was on November 11, 1988. On that date, April and another child, Kenny Maxwell, were drawing pictures and April drew two pictures for defendant. Naomi Holley saw these pictures in her house on Saturday, December 3, before she left for Porterville.

On that Saturday, defendant went back and forth between the Marshalls' house and the nearby residence of Barney Hernandez. Defendant was friends with Barney Hernandez's nephew, Robert Hernandez, who lived with his uncle. On one of these visits, around 7:30 p.m., defendant told Barney Hernandez that he had seen April Holley out walking by herself. Defendant left after a few minutes, but then returned about an hour later. He and Robert Hernandez took some tires upstairs and then defendant ate. While he was eating, he told Barney Hernandez that he had gone to the Holley residence and that April was there alone. Defendant also asked Robert Hernandez to inject him with cocaine. As defendant was leaving, Barney Hernandez told him to tell the Marshalls that April was by herself. Defendant said "he was gonna check her out, and he was gonna take care of it." This conversation occurred about 9:10 p.m.

Between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m., several individuals who lived near the Holley residence heard screams coming from the direction of that residence. One of them, an 11-year-old boy named Jeremy Johnson who knew April, testified that it was April who screamed. Two other witnesses testified the screams were those of a young girl.

About 11:00 p.m., defendant appeared at the bus that served as Jimmy Rousanvall's residence. The bus was parked behind Rousanvall's father's house.5 Rousanvall and his friend, 17-year-old Tammy Petrea, were watching television when defendant arrived. Petrea was an admitted drug addict and prostitute. Defendant asked whether they wanted to use cocaine and Petrea said yes. Rousanvall left and went into his father's house, leaving defendant alone with Petrea. After defendant and Petrea shared defendant's cocaine, defendant made a pass at her by putting his hand on her leg. Petrea, however, was frightened by defendant, who looked "scary," and she went outside. Defendant followed her and asked her whether she had heard about April being killed. Petrea said she had not. Defendant said that "they did it." He told her that April "had something on him, and he didn't want her to get on the witness stand and testify against them ... [b]ecause then he'd go to jail or something like that." He told her that he "f-ked her, and he drowned her ... [i]n the bathtub." He told her that he plugged the bathtub with a rag and then drowned her. Defendant told Petrea that "if [she] told anybody, that he'd take care of [her], or someone else will." Petrea was frightened by the threat. Then, as he was leaving, defendant also told her that "[p]ayback was a motherf — ker."6 Initially, Petrea did not tell police about defendant's statement because she was afraid.

Johnny Donald, who was walking in the vicinity of the Holley residence at about 11:30 p.m., testified that he saw defendant and another man, who fit the description of

183 P.3d 1156

Steven Brown, out walking, though not together, in that area.

Bobby Joe Marshall, Jr., testified that, after an evening of driving around and using drugs with his friend Joe Mills and Steven Brown, he and Mills returned to the Marshall residence about 2:00 a.m. According to Marshall, defendant called him into the bedroom where he was sleeping and told Marshall that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
884 practice notes
  • Mata v. Sherman, Case No. 1:13-cv-01040 DAD MJS (HC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 22, 2016
    ...People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 606-607 [more prejudicial than probative under Evid. Code, § 352]; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1002 [relevance]; People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 626 [Evid. Code, § 352]; People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 642-643 [foundat......
  • San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Schmidt, D062671
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 2014
    ...that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.’ ” (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1001, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146.)2. Cross–Examination of Anderson Regarding MUPa. Facts During cross-examination, Anderson testifi......
  • People v. Gutierrez, No. S073253.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 19, 2009
    ...he never again renewed it. By failing to press the court for a ruling, defendant forfeited this claim. (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1017, fn. 20, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 482, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 181 P.3d 947.) In light of the......
  • Jernigan v. Edward, Case No.: 15cv2793 BTM (RBB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • November 7, 2017
    ...presume jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating the instructions given them (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028), who understood the instructions as a whole (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320-1321), and followed the instructions. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
883 cases
  • Mata v. Sherman, Case No. 1:13-cv-01040 DAD MJS (HC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 22, 2016
    ...People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 606-607 [more prejudicial than probative under Evid. Code, § 352]; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1002 [relevance]; People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 626 [Evid. Code, § 352]; People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 642-643 [foundat......
  • San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Schmidt, D062671
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 2014
    ...that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.’ ” (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1001, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146.)2. Cross–Examination of Anderson Regarding MUPa. Facts During cross-examination, Anderson testifi......
  • People v. Gutierrez, No. S073253.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 19, 2009
    ...he never again renewed it. By failing to press the court for a ruling, defendant forfeited this claim. (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1017, fn. 20, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146; People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 482, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 181 P.3d 947.) In light of the......
  • Jernigan v. Edward, Case No.: 15cv2793 BTM (RBB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • November 7, 2017
    ...presume jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating the instructions given them (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028), who understood the instructions as a whole (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320-1321), and followed the instructions. ......
  • 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