People v. Sanders, No. S004439
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Writing for the Court | LUCAS; MOSK; BROUSSARD |
Citation | 51 Cal.3d 471,797 P.2d 561,273 Cal.Rptr. 537 |
Parties | , 797 P.2d 561 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Lee SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant |
Decision Date | 27 September 1990 |
Docket Number | No. S004439 |
Page 537
v.
Ronald Lee SANDERS, Defendant and Appellant.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1990.
Page 541
[51 Cal.3d 484] [797 P.2d 565] Dennis P. Riordan, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Nina Rivkind and B.E. Bergesen, III, for defendant and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Steve White and Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Willard F. Jones, Eddie T. Keller, [51 Cal.3d 485] Ward A. Campbell and Jane N. Kirkland, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Christopher N. Heard, as amicus curiae on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.
LUCAS, Chief Justice.
Ronald Lee Sanders was convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, robbery, burglary, and attempted robbery. Two allegations that he was armed with a firearm were found true. The jury also found true four special circumstance allegations: the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission or the attempted commission of the robbery and burglary (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i) & (vii)); 1 the victim was intentionally killed to prevent her testimony in a criminal proceeding (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(10)); and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(14)). After the penalty phase of the trial, the jury set the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).)
For the reasons stated below, we set aside the special circumstance findings based on the commission of a burglary and on the jury's conclusion that the murder was heinous, atrocious and cruel, but otherwise affirm the judgment in its entirety.
I. FACTS
Guilt Phase
In 1981, Dale Boender and Janice Allen moved to Bakersfield from Oildale. Boender supported the couple by selling cocaine and marijuana. One of his customers was Brenda Maxwell, but he stopped selling to her because she owed him money from prior transactions. On the morning of January 21, 1981, Maxwell's aunt, Donna Thompson, and defendant Ronald Lee Sanders visited Maxwell. The three decided to rob Boender of drugs and money and agreed to the following plan: Maxwell would entice Boender to her home by claiming she had a friend who wanted to buy a large quantity of cocaine. When Boender arrived, defendant would knock him out and they would rob him. Defendant would then bind Boender with duct tape before leaving. According to their plan, defendant would similarly bind [51 Cal.3d 486] Maxwell so she would appear to also have been a victim. Thompson would arrive later to "discover" and free the pair.
Maxwell's friend, Glen Blackford, was also visiting her at the time but was left in the living room while Maxwell, Thompson, and defendant planned the crime in the bedroom. When they returned to the living room after their planning session, Maxwell told Blackford "[s]omething is going
Page 542
[797 P.2d 566] to happen [so] get out of here." Blackford and Thompson then left (as planned) and Maxwell placed several calls to Boender to arrange the deal.Enticed by the promise of a large cocaine sale, Boender and Allen drove to Maxwell's mobilehome. Allen entered the home and began to sit down next to Maxwell. As Boender stepped through the doorway, defendant emerged from the kitchen and began beating Boender with a two-foot long piece of a pool stick. A struggle ensued but Boender and Allen eventually managed to exit the mobilehome, at which point defendant fled. Boender and Allen then drove off, first to a friend's house but later to a hospital to attend to Boender's injuries. They stayed at a relative's home until Friday, January 23, 1981.
Meanwhile, Thompson and defendant returned to Maxwell's mobilehome to discuss the aftermath of the botched robbery attempt. Maxwell was concerned that Boender would realize she had "set him up," and defendant was worried Boender could identify him. The three drove to a house on Jefferson Street where defendant engaged the assistance of John Cebreros. The group then went to Thompson's house where Maxwell called mutual friends of hers and Boender's to tell them she had been robbed and raped so as to enhance her claim that she had been victimized along with Boender.
On Friday, Boender and Allen decided to return to Boender's apartment. They arrived in the afternoon and told Boender's two roommates, Haney and Weinman, about the earlier assault. Later, Boender and Allen met Boender's former roommate, George Littleton, at a bar; the three of them went to Littleton's apartment around 7 p.m. and shared a small bottle of wine. After shopping for groceries, Boender and Allen returned home. Haney and Weinman were gone for the evening.
While Boender and Allen were preparing dinner, there was a knock at the door. Leaving Allen in the kitchen, Boender went to the front door and opened it, finding Cebreros and defendant standing there, the latter armed with a gun. Although he believed he had only seconds to live, Boender concentrated on their faces so he could remember them if he should see them again. Defendant spun Boender around and pushed him to the floor, face down. He felt someone's knee in his back and something pressed [51 Cal.3d 487] against his neck. Allen emerged from the kitchen and was also made to lie on the floor. Boender's glasses were ripped from his face and both he and Allen were bound and blindfolded.
One of the assailants demanded that Boender tell them where he kept his cocaine, and he directed them to Allen's purse. After he told them his money was in his shirt pocket, someone removed it. Boender heard the two assailants rummaging through the apartment but could not tell what was going on. After a few minutes, he was dragged to what seemed like his bedroom. He heard more footsteps, muffled talking, and more banging around the apartment. One of the assailants said he wanted to leave but the other said he wanted to stay. Boender then heard someone approach, felt a blow to the head, and recalled nothing further.
Boender's roommates returned to the apartment in the early morning and discovered the apartment full of smoke. A search revealed food burning in the oven. On further investigation, they discovered Boender in his bedroom, lying in a pool of blood. After calling an ambulance, they noticed that the apartment was in disarray, there were spots of blood around, and a baggie of marijuana was missing. When Haney found Allen's body in his bedroom, he called the police.
Both Boender and Allen had been bound by lengths of electrical cord cut from Boender's vacuum cleaner. Allen sustained a fatal head wound which fractured her skull and lacerated her brain. Boender suffered a skull fracture but was conscious and semicoherent when police arrived. He was not questioned until the next day.
Haney and Weinman told police about Boender's story of the attempted robbery two days earlier, prompting police to contact Maxwell. She falsely told police that Cebreros came to her home, forced her to
Page 543
[797 P.2d 567] call Boender, and then beat him up when he arrived. However, she gave them accurate descriptions of defendant and Cebreros as well as the address of the Jefferson Street house where defendant met Cebreros. From his hospital bed, Boender gave descriptions of defendant and Cebreros that matched Maxwell's descriptions.Cebreros was arrested the next day in front of the Jefferson Street house. In his car, police found a gun similar to that which Boender described as the one used in the attempt to murder him. In Cebreros's boot, police found a baggie of marijuana which was identical to the one taken in the robbery. Both Maxwell and Boender positively identified Cebreros as one of the assailants.
[51 Cal.3d 488] A few days later, Maxwell recanted her story and told police the truth about the bungled robbery attempt. She also told police about the duct tape defendant intended to use to bind Boender. Police found a roll of such tape in Maxwell's home and tests revealed defendant's fingerprints on it. He was arrested and positively identified by Boender in a photographic lineup later that week.
Defendant and Cebreros were tried jointly and they presented an alibi defense. Three defense witnesses testified that on the night of the murder, both defendant and Cebreros were at the home of Cebreros's brother Salvador, talking, playing chess, and drinking beer. There was also evidence from Boender's neighbors that although two men were seen outside Boender's apartment on the night of the murder, neither one looked like Cebreros or defendant. Finally, there was evidence that defendant had used Maxwell's roll of duct tape for an innocent purpose a few days earlier.
Defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict. On retrial, both he and Cebreros were convicted on all counts. The prosecutor declined to seek the death penalty against Cebreros and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Penalty Phase
The prosecution produced several witnesses at the penalty phase who described five armed robberies defendant committed in Orange County in 1970. Although none of the witnesses could positively identify defendant at trial, a police expert testified that the fingerprints of the gunman in the five Orange County robberies matched defendant's fingerprints.
James Quinn testified that on October 1, 1970, he was working late at the Allstate Motel in Santa Ana when defendant and a crime partner robbed him at gunpoint. Thomas Ferguson testified that defendant, brandishing a revolver, robbed him on September 12, 1970, while Ferguson was employed as a clerk at the Station Liquor Store in Tustin. Defendant committed an armed robbery in the same establishment on November 20, 1970, this time robbing clerk Fred Turnbull.
Sammy Mitchell testified that he was working in Mitchell's Market in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Dickey, No. S025519.
...below. (See post, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 678-679, 111 P.3d at pp. 948-949.) 8. Defendant's reliance upon People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561, is also unavailing. The Sanders court quoted the statement in question from Anderson. (Sanders, at p. 517, 273 Cal......
-
People v. Ledesma, No. S014394.
...are not inconsistent with the conclusion that defendant intended to prevent the witness from testifying. (See People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 520, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561 [evidence was sufficient to support witness-killing special circumstance when, shortly after a robbery a......
-
People v. Morgan, No. S055130.
...circumstances, each of which "`involved violation of [a] distinct interest that society seeks to protect.'" (People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 529, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561.) In the latter situation, a defendant "`may be deemed more culpable than a defendant who commits only on......
-
People v. Bolin, No. S019786
...absent a showing of abuse, i.e., that their probative value is clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect. (People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 514, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561.) In overruling the objection, the court here characterized the evidence as "highly relevant" because ......
-
People v. Dickey, No. S025519.
...below. (See post, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 678-679, 111 P.3d at pp. 948-949.) 8. Defendant's reliance upon People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561, is also unavailing. The Sanders court quoted the statement in question from Anderson. (Sanders, at p. 517, 273 Cal......
-
People v. Ledesma, No. S014394.
...are not inconsistent with the conclusion that defendant intended to prevent the witness from testifying. (See People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 520, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561 [evidence was sufficient to support witness-killing special circumstance when, shortly after a robbery a......
-
People v. Morgan, No. S055130.
...circumstances, each of which "`involved violation of [a] distinct interest that society seeks to protect.'" (People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 529, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561.) In the latter situation, a defendant "`may be deemed more culpable than a defendant who commits only on......
-
People v. Bolin, No. S019786
...absent a showing of abuse, i.e., that their probative value is clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect. (People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 514, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561.) In overruling the objection, the court here characterized the evidence as "highly relevant" because ......