People v. Riel

Decision Date18 May 2000
Docket NumberNo. S008005.,S008005.
Citation96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1,998 P.2d 969,22 Cal.4th 1153
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Dell RIEL, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert D. Bacon, Oakland, 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, Michael J. Weinberger, Robert D. Marshall and Clayton S. Tanaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHIN, J.

A jury convicted defendant of the first degree murder, robbery, and kidnapping of Edward Middleton and found true special circumstance allegations of robbery murder and kidnapping murder. The jury also found that defendant personally used a deadly weapon as to all counts, and that he had two prior second degree burglary convictions for which he served a prison term. After the penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death, and the court imposed that sentence. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239.)1 We will strike a redundant prior prison term finding and otherwise affirm the judgment.

I. Facts
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence

During the night of November 2-3, 1986, Edward Middleton worked the night shift at Rambo's Truck Stop on Interstate 5 near Weed. In the early morning hours, he was robbed, driven to Shasta County, and there murdered. The evidence showed that three persons committed the crime: defendant, Virgil Edwards, and John Osborne.2

After the crime, the drawer to the store's cash register was left open. Middleton's eyeglasses and hearing aid were found inside the store along with a charge slip for gasoline containing Osborne's signature. The store owner determined that about $328 was missing from the cash register. Beer cans found at the truck stop contained defendant's and Osborne's fingerprints, and Osborne's fingerprint was found on a store doorknob. Middleton's body was found down an embankment below the roadway of Soda Creek Road in northern Shasta County. A bloody tire iron and an air pressure gauge were found on the road itself. The victim died of multiple blunt force injuries to the head and face, consistent with being hit with the tire iron, and of multiple stab wounds to the chest and back.

Edwards testified. He said he had agreed to testify truthfully in exchange for pleading guilty to first degree murder and receiving a prison sentence of 25 years to life. On November 2, 1986, he drove with defendant from Klamath Falls, Oregon, to Weed in his 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass. That afternoon, they met Osborne, whom both knew, at Rambo's Truck Stop, where Osborne worked. The group smoked marijuana, drank beer, and visited various other persons and places. Edwards said that during the afternoon and evening, defendant and Osborne got "drunk," and he himself was "stoned." Eventually, the three returned to the truck stop, arriving around 2:15 a.m. on November 3, 1986. Middleton was on duty, and a truck driver was present with his truck. Edwards filled his car with gas—which they charged—while defendant and Osborne, both drinking beer, went inside the store. The three then drove up a nearby dirt road. Edwards retrieved a knife from the trunk. As they were "sitting in the car, [they] cut [their] fingers," then put them together to "become blood brothers." The three planned to wait until the truck driver left, then defendant "would go inside, knock the guy out, and just take the money."

After the truck driver left, Edwards drove the car back to the truck stop. Defendant got out and "went around the side of the building," where he remained for about a minute and a half. Then Osborne joined him. About 30 seconds later they returned with Middleton between them. Defendant and Osborne forced Middleton into the backseat. Defendant sat next to him, and Osborne sat in the front. Edwards said that defendant put a knife to Edwards's throat and told him to drive. Edwards drove onto the freeway. While they were driving, defendant hit Middleton and demanded his wallet. Middleton gave defendant his wallet. Defendant opened it, took out some money, and said, "Thirteen bucks. I'm going to kill you now." Edwards pulled to the side of the road and parked. He and Osborne said to let the man go. Defendant told them to "shut up," or he would kill them too. He directed Edwards to continue driving. Edwards did so, then eventually left the freeway and stopped in a dark area.

They all got out of the car. Edwards opened the trunk and, at defendant's direction, took out a tire iron and gave it to defendant. Defendant hit Middleton in the head with the tire iron. Middleton fell to the ground. Defendant, who had the knife, said to the others, "We are all in this together; and now you got to stab him.... If you don't stab him, you will be right here with him." Edwards and Osborne stabbed Middleton. Defendant then "went to move the guy off the side of the road." As he was doing so, he lost his footing and "fell down the hill with the man on top of him." Osborne helped defendant "move the body off." The trio drove away. While they were driving, defendant licked some blood off the knife and ordered the others to do the same. Later they washed the knife at a rest area and split up the money. Edwards received $33. They continued driving, finally stopping at defendant's sister's house in Vacaville.

Various people who were with the trio in Weed before the crime or in Vacaville after the crime also testified. Melinda Peterson testified that defendant, Edwards, and Osborne were at her home in Weed shortly before the crime. Defendant and Osborne asked her husband, Rick, for a gun. He told them no. Edwards said, "Well, we don't need a gun. I have a knife." The three left. Before they left, defendant said, "Come on, let's get out of here and get this over with." Based on defendant's statements, she thought they were planning to commit a robbery, and she did not want her husband to go with them. Rick Peterson testified that defendant and Osborne asked him for a gun. Earlier, he had told police that Edwards had asked for the gun.

Among the stops the trio made in Vacaville was a visit to the home of defendant's sister, Roslyn Walker, and Candy Cobb. Cobb heard defendant say "they had gotten fucked up and there was a man in a coma." Walker testified that defendant told her, "Sis, I have something to tell you. There is a man in a coma."

Tami Sisco testified that on the night of the murder, she saw two men, apparently Edwards and Osborne, and an older car with an Oregon license plate in the area of the truck stop. James Tolley, a truck driver, testified he stopped at the truck stop around 1:15 to 1:30 that morning. He observed two people, whose descriptions matched Edwards and Osborne.

Forensic analysis of blood found on defendant's boots and pants showed it could not have come from defendant, Edwards, or Osborne, but was consistent with Middleton's blood.

2. Defense Evidence

Defendant testified. He admitted being with Edwards and Osborne before and after the robbery and murder. But he said that he had been doing so much drinking the day of the crime that he fell asleep in the backseat of Edwards's car and slept through the crime. After he fell asleep, the next thing he remembered was that Edwards woke him up and told him to help Osborne "move a body." He got out of the car and saw a body "lying on the road." He "helped [Osborne] move the body off the side of the road" then got back in the car and fell asleep again. Defendant denied any involvement in the killing itself.

3. Bifurcated Trial on Prior Prison Terms

After the guilt verdict, at a bifurcated trial, the jury found true that defendant had suffered two felonies for which he served a prison term.

B. Penalty Phase

The prosecution presented no additional evidence at the penalty phase.

The defense presented two witnesses in mitigation. Ardell Morgan, the director of a private special education school in Washington that defendant attended when he was a teenager, testified about his good qualities. He had a learning disability and was gentle and helpful. Joseph Ross, a supervisor at the McNeil Island Correctional Center in Washington where defendant had been incarcerated, testified that defendant had been a good worker in prison and had presented no problems. In his opinion, defendant would not be a problem in prison if he received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

II. Discussion
A. Guilt Phase
1. Failure to Conduct the Trial with Sufficient "Seriousness and Decorum"

Defendant contends his attorneys, Frank O'Connor and Russell Swartz, "did not conduct themselves with the seriousness and decorum appropriate to a trial in which a human life is at stake," and the trial court erred by failing to control this inappropriate conduct. "Well-conceived judicial humor can be a welcome relief during a long, tense trial. Obviously, however, the court should refrain from joking remarks which the jury might interpret as denigrating a particular party or his attorney." (People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 753-754, 244 Cal.Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741.) Here, defendant's primary complaint is not of misconduct by the court, or even the prosecutors, but by his own attorneys. Accordingly, his real claim is that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance.

"To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. [Citation.] `A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1030 cases
  • People v. Dykes
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2009
    ...example of pervasive and corrosive prosecutorial misconduct that persisted throughout the trial (see People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1212, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969), the present case did not involve counsel experiencing—as did counsel in Hill—a "constant barrage" of misstatemen......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2021
    ...375 P.3d 812 ; People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 912, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 305, 102 P.3d 228 ( Horning ); People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1220, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969.) He contends that the failure to object should be excused on grounds of futility, "given the trial court's ......
  • People v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2014
    ...conduct actually constituted an adoptive admission becomes a question for the jury to decide.’ " ( People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1189–1190, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969.) A direct accusation is not required; only a statement " ‘under circumstances that would normally call for a r......
  • People v. Mendez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2019
    ...the defendant actually adopted the statements of the codefendant, however, is a question for the jury. ( People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1189-1190, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969.) A court thus decides only whether a reasonable jury could so conclude on the facts before it. ( Id. at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 books & journal articles
  • Relevance and prejudice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...sufficient if the record as a whole shows the court understood its obligation and performed the weighing process. People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1153, 1187-1188, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1. After lengthy oral argument or the submission of thorough written memoranda it is inferred that the court ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 1092, §§10:80, 20:80 Rieger v. Arnold (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 451, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295, §11:10 Riel, People v. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1153, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, §§3:10, 7:50, 7:160, 8:30, 9:100, 12:100 Riggs, People v. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 248, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648, §§1:70, 7:140,......
  • Horizontal federalism in an age of criminal justice interconnectedness.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 154 No. 2, December 2005
    • December 1, 2005
    ...the criminal history of the individual to be sentenced). (69) California permits this as a matter of course. See People v. Riel, 998 P.2d 969, 1005 (Cal. 2000) (holding that the government can "go behind the statutory elements of the crime to prove that a defendant's actual crime constitute......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...is to continue probing the same subject matter in an effort to get the witness to modify his or her testimony. People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1153, 1197, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1. The court may exercise reasonable judgment in determining when a subject has been exhausted and place time limitat......
  • 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