People v. Smith

Decision Date05 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. S035348.,S035348.
Citation150 P.3d 1224,40 Cal.4th 483,54 Cal.Rptr.3d 245
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Lee SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.

Scott F. Kauffman, under appointment by the Supreme Court, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald S. Matthias and Dorian Jung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MORENO, J.

A jury convicted defendant Robert Lee Smith of the first degree murders of Michelle Dorsey and James Martin (Pen. Code, § 187), among other offenses, and found true the special circumstance allegations that defendant committed multiple murders (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and that each murder was committed during the commission of a robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), 211). Following a sanity phase held pursuant to defendant's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury returned a verdict that defendant was sane at the time of the offenses. After the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic. (Pen.Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) As explained below, we will reverse defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property (Pen.Code, § 496, former subd. (1), now subd. (a)) and otherwise affirm the judgment.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Procedural History

On June 18, 1991, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a 10-count information in Contra Costa County Superior Court, charging defendant with the following: two counts of first degree murder (of Michelle Dorsey and James Martin) in violation of Penal Code section 187; attempted robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 211, 212.5, subdivision (a), and 664; robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (a); unlawful taking of a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a); first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code sections 459 and 460, former subdivision 1, now subdivision (a); possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350; receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, former subdivision (1), now subdivision (a); petty theft in violation of Penal Code sections 484 and 488; and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of Penal Code section 182.

The information further alleged that defendant personally used a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a),1 in connection with the charge of receiving stolen property. Additionally, the information alleged as special circumstances that defendant committed multiple first degree murders under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3), and that defendant committed murder in the course of a robbery under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A).

On July 8, 1991, defendant pled not guilty to all counts of the information and denied the special circumstance and firearm-use allegations. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion to set aside the information pursuant to section 995 and a nonstatutory motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the count alleging that defendant had committed petty theft and denied the remainder of defendant's motion to dismiss the information. The trial court also denied defendant's motion to sever the burglary and conspiracy counts.

On March 25, 1993, defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to all counts and allegations of the information, pursuant to section 1026. The guilt phase jury trial commenced on April 20, 1993. On May 27, 1993, the jury convicted defendant of all remaining counts and found true the weapon allegation and all special circumstance allegations.

The sanity trial commenced on June 8, 1993. On June 22, 1993, the jury found that defendant was legally sane at the time of the charged offenses. The penalty phase began on June 23, 1993. On July 6, 1993, the jury determined the death penalty should be imposed. The trial court sentenced defendant to death for the murders and to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on the conspiracy charge. In addition, the trial court imposed a determinate term of three years for the remaining counts, to be served concurrently with the indeterminate term. Pursuant to section 654, the court stayed the imposition of sentence on the above counts, pending the automatic appeal and the death sentence being carried out.

On September 30, 1993, the trial court denied defendant's automatic application to modify the death verdict. After considering defendant's motion for a new trial, the trial court dismissed the firearm enhancement allegation due to insufficient evidence, but otherwise denied defendant's motion. This appeal is automatic.

B. Guilt Phase Evidence
1. Prosecution Evidence

Michelle Dorsey lived with her brother, James Martin, in a two-bedroom apartment in Richmond.2 Joseph A. had known the victims since he was about five years old, visiting them several times a month, and had considered Dorsey his godmother. Defendant's brother, Jesse Smith, told the police that defendant and Dorsey had a "boyfriend, girlfriend type of relationship" and that Dorsey was defendant's ex-girlfriend.

Joseph, who was 14 years old at the time, went to visit Dorsey on the day of the murders, March 23, 1991. He found Dorsey in her bedroom, with defendant sitting at the foot of her bed. They were watching television, and Joseph joined them. After some time, defendant called Joseph to the living room and showed him a pistol and ammunition clip he had taken from Dorsey's dresser. At this time, Joseph thought that Dorsey probably was asleep. Defendant asked whether Joseph had ever considered robbing Dorsey and Martin, and Joseph replied that he had not. Nonetheless, Joseph took the pistol from defendant, loaded bullets into the clip, and handed the pistol back to defendant. Joseph believed that defendant would return the gun to the dresser.

Joseph followed defendant to Dorsey's bedroom. Defendant asked Dorsey for the combination to the safe she kept in her bedroom. Dorsey noticed defendant holding the gun and demanded that he give the gun back to her. When Dorsey rose to confront defendant, he shot her once in the chest. Dorsey fell to her knees on her bed.

The shot woke Martin, who called out from his room to find out what was happening. Defendant told Martin to go back to sleep. Defendant and Joseph walked to the doorway of Martin's room, and, according to Joseph, defendant shot Martin once in the chest. At defendant's direction, Joseph carried Martin into the hallway. While Martin lay on the floor, still alive, defendant took money out of Martin's wallet. He then told Joseph to take Martin to Dorsey's room, where defendant and Joseph bound Martin's hands and feet.

With Joseph's assistance, defendant pulled Dorsey's safe out of the Closet and took it downstairs to the trunk of Dorsey's car. They drove to Jesse Smith's house, where defendant rushed in and told Jesse that he "just shot two people." Jesse asked who defendant had shot, and defendant replied that it was Dorsey and her brother. Once they were able to pry the safe open, Joseph and defendant took the safe's contents; defendant took $100 cash, and Joseph took the rest of the cash and the jewelry. Joseph gave his girlfriend, Jalicia P., some gold bracelets from the safe.

Concerned that Martin had survived and could identify them, defendant and Joseph returned to the apartment to see if Martin was still alive. After confirming that Martin was dead, defendant and Joseph took some CD's, tapes, and other small items from the apartment. Joseph and defendant returned to Jesse's house and disposed of the safe in the vacant lot next door.

The next day, the victims' sister, Wilma Thomas, found their bodies in the Richmond apartment. The apartment was ransacked, and Dorsey's car was missing.

Dorsey and Martin had each been shot one time. During the autopsy, the forensic pathologist found a .32-caliber bullet in Dorsey's body. Martin's hands and feet had been bound behind him with telephone cord and a leather belt. In Margin's bedroom, police found two unexpended .32caliber rounds, and near Martin's bed there was one expended .32-caliber cartridge and some blood. Martin could have survived his wound if he had received immediate medical treatment, and it was estimated that it took him between 20 minutes and an hour to die from the wound.

The following day, defendant's brother, Jesse Smith, was driving Dorsey's car in North Richmond. Defendant was in the front passenger seat, and there were two passengers, Darrell Fuller and Bobby Robinson, in the rear seat of the car. Defendant had told Jesse that he had he gotten the car from "some base head," had told Fuller that he had purchased the car from "faggot Michelle" for $4,000, and had gotten the gun from "some base head."

A deputy from the Contra Costa Sheriffs Office on patrol in North Richmond spotted Dorsey's car and pulled over the vehicle. As the car was pulled over, defendant told the other occupants to tell the deputy that the car was a friend's car or had been rented from someone. While searching the car, the deputy found a box of .32-caliber ammunition and a .32-caliber semiautomatic pistol underneath defendant's seat. The gun found in the car was registered; to Dorsey, and analysis of an expended `.32-caliber cartridge from the crime scene revealed that it had been fired from Dorsey's gun. Defendant was arrested.

Defendant was first interviewed by police on the day he was arrested, Monday, March 25, 1991. Defendant told inconsistent stories about how he had obtained Dorsey's gun; he told police that he had purchased Dorsey's gun from a person named "Skin," then told police that he actually hid bought the gun from a drug dealer called "D Money." He told police that he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
566 cases
  • People v. Dykes, S050851.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 15 Junio 2009
    ...moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion."'" (People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 502, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 245, 150 P.3d 1224, italics added.) Although defendant may have felt vulnerable, there is no indication of police coercion during ......
  • People v. Carranco, H032412 (Cal. App. 2/24/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 2010
    ......Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299 . . .; People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 167 . . . .)" ( People v. Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th 145, 172.) People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483 observed on page 505: "Courts have repeatedly found proper interrogation tactics far more intimidating and deceptive than those employed in this case. (See, e.g., Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 U.S. 731, 739 . . . [officer falsely told the suspect his accomplice had been ......
  • People v. Spencer, S057242
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 12 Julio 2018
    ...with law enforcement; and 5) further indicia that the defendant subjectively understands and waives his rights." ( People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 504, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 245, 150 P.3d 1224 ( Smith ).)420 P.3d 1122We conclude that the subsequent interrogation conducted by Sergeant Keech ......
  • People v. Cardenas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Mayo 2011
    ......Mere breaks in the recording of an interrogation do not establish that a suspect's subsequent statements were involuntary or coerced. (See People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 507 [rejecting contention that "police 'did something' to make defendant change his story during the unrecorded portion of the tape"]; see also People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 663 [federal Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded], ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§17.1; §19.1 People v. Smith, 179 Cal. App. 4th 986, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177 (2d Dist. 2009)—Ch. 3-A, §3.4.3(1)(d).4 People v. Smith, 40 Cal. 4th 483, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 245, 150 P.3d 1224 (2007)—Ch. 5-B, §2.1; §2.2.2(2); E, §2.4.2 People v. Smith, 135 Cal. App. 4th 914, 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (4th......
  • Privileges and public policy exclusions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...and an objection to the procedure used by the trial court must be made or the issue is forfeited on appeal. People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 483, 517, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 245. When the trial judge is aware of the potential for self-incrimination by a witness, the judge has a duty to protect ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...3d 259, 147 Cal. Rptr. 1, §18:40 Smith, People v. (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 1134, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, §§2:190, 7:70 Smith, People v. (2005) 40 Cal. 4th 483, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 245, §§7:80, 9:130, 10:60, 10:100 Smith, People v. (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 334, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 554, §3:50 Smith, People v. (200......
  • 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
    ...875 F.2d 1429, 1434 (confession was not involuntary when made under influence of drugs and to private citizen); People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 502 (confession was not involuntary when police were unaware of and did not exploit D's psychological vulnerabilities); People v. Murtishaw ......
  • 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