People v. Rowland

Decision Date17 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. S006395,S006395
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 841 P.2d 897 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Guy Kevin ROWLAND, Defendant and Appellant.

Andrew J. Weill, Benjamin, Weill, Mazer, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Robert Navarro, for defendant and appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dane R. Gillette, Morris Beatus and Christopher W. Grove, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

This is an automatic appeal (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b)) from a judgment of death under the 1978 death penalty law (id., § 190 et seq.).

On February 11, 1987, the District Attorney of San Mateo County filed an amended information against defendant Guy Kevin Rowland in the superior court of that county. (He had filed the original information on September 29, 1986.)

Count I charged that on or about March 17, 1986, defendant murdered Marion R. (Pen.Code, § 187.)

It was alleged for death eligibility that defendant committed the offense under the special circumstance of felony murder in the course of rape (Pen.Code, § 261). (Id., § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(iii).)

Count II charged that on or about March 17, 1986, defendant raped Marion R. (Pen.Code, § 261, subd. (2), as amended by Stats.1985, ch. 283, § 1, pp. 1307-1308, present Pen.Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2).)

It was alleged for enhancement of sentence that on or about June 8, 1981, defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Alameda County of twelve "serious felonies" (Pen.Code, § 667, subd. (a)): two counts of kidnapping (id., § 207); three counts of rape (id., § 261); three counts of rape in concert (id., §§ 261, 264.1); two counts of sodomy (id., § 286); one count of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under fourteen years of age (id., § 288, subd. (a)); and one count of oral copulation (id., § 288a).

It was also alleged for enhancement of sentence that defendant served a prison term for each of the 12 offenses listed above. (Pen.Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)

It was finally alleged for purposes of prohibiting probation or suspension of sentence that defendant committed the charged murder and rape while on state prison parole (Pen.Code, § 3000) following a prison term imposed for the "violent felonies" comprising each of the 12 offenses listed above, with the exception of the 2 kidnapping counts. (Id., § 1203.085, subd. (a).)

Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the allegations.

Trial was by jury as to the charges and the special circumstance allegation. With defendant's agreement to bifurcation and waiver of a jury, trial was by the court as to the other allegations. The jury returned verdicts of guilty against defendant as to murder in the first degree and rape, and also found the special circumstance allegation true. It subsequently returned a verdict of death for the murder. The court rendered a finding of true as to each of the other allegations. It denied the automatic application for modification of the verdict of death. (Pen.Code, § 190.4, subd. (e).) It proceeded to enter judgment as follows. For the murder, it imposed the sentence of death. For the rape, it imposed a sentence of imprisonment comprising the upper term of eight years as to the offense itself, to be served fully, separately, and consecutively to any other sentence, with an additional term of five years for the prior "serious felony" convictions. It stayed the sentence of imprisonment pending execution of the sentence of death.

Finding no reversible error or other defect, we conclude that the judgment must be affirmed.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase

The evidence presented by the People told a tale to the following effect.

About 9 p.m. on March 16, 1986, defendant was introduced to Marion R. at the Wild Idle Bar in the rural community of Byron in Contra Costa County. He was 24 years of age and she was 31. Marion R. was talking with friends "about chickens and eggs and all kinds of things, town things." She was still feeling the effects of a cold she had the previous week and was drinking only moderately. She lived and worked in Byron, residing with her mother and serving as a cook at the Boys' Ranch. She was not known as a "loose woman." All the same, she regularly "snorted" methamphetamine and evidently had a vial of the substance in her possession. Defendant was a stranger from Livermore in neighboring Alameda County. At the bar, he had asked a patron, "[W]here's the chicks in town here[?]" He was told "if he wanted chicks he should go to Walnut Creek or Concord if he's looking for that kind of action."

Defendant socialized with Marion R. for a while. To the eyes of an off-duty bartender, he appeared to be "coming on" to her. She did not respond positively, but seemed to be "trying to ignore" him.

Before 10 p.m., defendant left the bar alone. Apparently, he drove away in a truck he had driven there.

Sometime later, Marion R. told a friend named Jeanne Weems that "she was not feeling very well, she had a terrible headache," and that "she had to go to work early the next morning and she needed to go home because she had a terrible headache and she needed to get some sleep." (Generally, she set out for work around 5:30 a.m. and went to bed by 11 p.m.) She then left the bar alone. Apparently, she drove away in a car she had driven there. Not long afterwards, the vehicle was seen parked about half a block from the bar in an unusual location and in an unusual way; it was evidently empty; and it was apparently unlocked--a condition inconsistent with Marion R.'s "firmly ingrained" "habit."

In the hours that followed, defendant brutally beat Marion R. about the head and face and elsewhere. He also had sexual intercourse with her, evidently against her will. There was expert testimony that she suffered a bruise "an inch or two above the [right] kneecap and somewhat towards the inside part of the thigh"; the location of the injury was "unusual"; such a bruise, however, could have been caused "if someone used a knee ... to force the legs apart." Finally, he strangled her. Apparently, he choked her twice: the first time, he did not succeed in killing her; the second time, about 30 to 60 minutes later, he did. Before death, she ingested a potentially lethal dose of methamphetamine. It appears that he may have put the substance into her mouth after he overcame her resistance. It does not appear that she could have "snorted" the requisite quantity of the substance or that she would have attempted to do so voluntarily. He hauled the body in his truck to the vicinity of Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County, dragged it on the ground, and dumped it in the ocean.

About 6 a.m. on March 17, defendant called a woman named Susan Lanet, who lived in Livermore and was apparently his lover, and arranged to visit. Around 7 a.m. he arrived at her house. He seemed disturbed and said he was going to leave the state. They shared some methamphetamine he had evidently taken from Marion R. Later, he again said he was going to leave the state. He soon admitted that he had killed Marion R. He asked Lanet whether she wanted some of the dead woman's belongings, including a ring and makeup. She said no. He offered her $20 to clean his truck and remove "[b]lood and every strand of hair." Frightened, she purported to accept. Her secret intent, however, was to summon the police. She eventually did so. About 9 a.m., an officer of the Livermore Police Department arrested defendant as he attempted to flee. It was later determined that defendant had not consumed a quantity of methamphetamine that would have caused substantial impairment at any time relevant here. Around 9:45 a.m., Marion R.'s body was found lying face down at the base of a cliff in the environs of Moss Beach near Half Moon Bay.

Defendant did not present any evidence. He did not himself take the stand, nor did he call any witnesses.

B. Penalty Phase

To establish the appropriateness of the death penalty, the People offered in aggravation: (1) the circumstances of the offenses defendant committed against Marion R.; (2) other violent criminal activity he perpetrated; and (3) prior felony convictions he suffered.

As to the circumstances of the offenses, the People did not present any evidence. Instead, they relied on the evidence already adduced at the guilt phase.

As to other violent criminal activity, the People presented evidence to the following effect.

On April 4, 1978, defendant unlawfully entered the residence of Harriet Larson in San Ramon in Contra Costa County. Attempting to escape, he assaulted and battered the woman, who was then 63 years of age. She suffered a crushed vertebra and required 11 days of hospitalization.

On October 4, 1980, defendant lured 26-year-old Tereza V. out of a bar in Pleasanton in Alameda County to a nearby park with a false offer to share some cocaine. At the park, he made sexual advances; she rejected his approach; he then assaulted, battered, and raped her; during the attack, she bit off part of his tongue.

On November 7, 1980, together with a male partner, defendant lured Lisa V. and Caren F. into a truck in Fremont in Alameda County with a false offer of a ride; the girls were friends and were then 13 years of age. Defendant and his partner then kidnapped Lisa and Caren. Caren escaped; Lisa attempted to, but failed. Defendant helped his partner rape Lisa twice. He himself raped her six times, caused her to orally copulate him, sodomized her twice, and fondled her genital organs and other parts of her body. During the attack, he repeatedly threatened her with death if she resisted.

On March 11, 1986, defendant engaged in an acrimonious argument with his apparently 20-year-old stepsister Keli Taylor in the home she shared with her mother and stepfather (defendant's father)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
765 cases
  • Ctr. for Cmty. Action & Envtl. Justice v. City of Moreno Valley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 23, 2018
    ...request because the proceedings in the CEQA lawsuits are not necessary for our analysis here. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897 (Rowland ) [declining to take judicial notice of irrelevant court records].)5 A city or county's development ag......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2017
    ...by a plea of not guilty or a denial of an allegation [and] remains ‘disputed’ until it is resolved." (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 260, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897 ; accord, People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 471, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 91, 257 P.3d 703.) Defendant further argu......
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 2020
    ...of the issues raised in the present appeals (among other potential barriers to notice). (See People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268, fn. 6, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897 (Rowland ) [declining notice of irrelevant court records].) We grant judicial notice as to certain documents, as ......
  • People v. Fayed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 2020
    ...be drawn therefrom. ( People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 928, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 200 P.3d 898 ; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 277, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897 ["hyperbolic and tendentious" comments, even if "harsh and unbecoming," may be reasonable if they can be infe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...evidence was improper, but since the evidence was strong it was not likely the jury was unduly influenced. People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 238, 274-281, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377. Harsh language that disparaged psychiatry and psychiatrists may have been impolite, but since it was a reasonabl......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...823, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, §2:160 Rowell, People v. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 447, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843, §2:20 Rowland, People v. (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 238, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, §§1:280, 21:100 Royal, People v. (2019) 43 Cal. App. 5th 121, 256 Cal. Rptr. 3d 281, §§9:120, 17:60 Royal Surplus Line......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...are discretionary with the trial judge, but if new scientific procedures are at issue, expect a hearing. People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 238, 265, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377; Evid. Code §402. The proponent of the evidence must be prepared to define the relevant scientific community through ex......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 2d 72. Mere inferences or speculation are not sufficient to show that the statement is untrustworthy. People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 238, 262, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377. The state of mind exception to the hearsay rule does not make admissible evidence of a statement of memory or ......
  • 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