People v. Stansbury

Decision Date08 March 1993
Docket NumberNo. S004697,No. 24685,S004697,24685
Citation846 P.2d 756,17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174,4 Cal.4th 1017
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 846 P.2d 756 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Edward STANSBURY, Defendant and Appellant. Crim.

Robert M. Westberg, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, David S. Winton, Joseph A. Hearst and David H. Bromfield, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama and John A. Gordnier, Asst. Attys. Gen., Dane R. Gillette, Morris Beatus and Eileen Bunney, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

BY THE COURT:

Defendant Robert Edward Stansbury was convicted by jury of the first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187) 1 of Robyn Jackson; lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)); rape (§ 261, subd. (2)); and kidnapping (§ 207). The jury found true three special circumstance allegations: murder in the commission of a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(ii)); murder in the commission of rape (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(iii)); and murder in the commission of a lewd act on a child (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(v)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury in connection with the noncapital offenses (§§ 1203.075, 12022.7, 12022.8) and that defendant committed the offenses while on parole (§§ 1203.085, subd. (a), 3000).

The jury fixed the penalty at death. This appeal is automatic. We conclude that we should affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I. FACTS
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Case

On September 28, 1982, defendant, a tall red-headed man with a beard, drove an ice cream truck on a sales route around the Baldwin Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. He accidentally drove the truck into a fence around 5 p.m. and he cooperated with the property owner in trying to fix the fence. The owner observed nothing wrong with defendant's truck; it appeared to operate normally. Defendant left the scene between 5:30 and 5:45 p.m. A competing ice cream truck driver also saw defendant in the neighborhood that afternoon, and again, his truck appeared to be functioning well and traveling at speed.

Robyn went to the Geddes School in Baldwin Park around 6 p.m. that evening. A neighbor saw a white ice cream truck near the school about that time, and the neighbor's son saw Robyn talking to the ice cream truck driver in front of the school. The boy looked away, and when he looked back, Robyn was not to be seen and the truck was making a U-turn and driving away. He identified the driver as a man with red hair and a beard. The child said that Robyn often talked to the ice cream truck driver and, unlike any of the other neighborhood children, received gifts of candy and ice cream from him. He identified a picture of defendant as he looked with long hair and a beard as the driver of the ice cream truck Robyn frequented.

Beverly Allen, a gas station attendant, saw a large white ice cream truck arrive at her station about 6:30 p.m. on September 28, 1982. Her Sears U.S.A. gas station was located in Covina, and she saw the truck arrive from the east on Arrow Highway. She saw a young man (not defendant) with blond hair buy gas and ask someone in the truck to be dropped off by the freeway. Mrs. Allen saw defendant standing by the passenger door of the truck, and observed Robyn inside, looking unhappy. Mrs. Allen was somewhat uncertain about her identification of defendant.

Defendant did not return to his home in Pomona until 9 p.m. that evening. He borrowed his roommate's turquoise automobile around midnight, first driving it next to his truck for a few minutes. He returned around 3 a.m.

About 1:15 a.m. Andrew Zimmerman saw the turquoise car in Pasadena. He saw a large person get out of the car, the door of which made a memorable popping sound, and throw something in a flood control channel. Mr. Zimmerman telephoned the police, who arrived about 1:30 to discover the body of Robyn in the flood control channel. Mr. Zimmerman positively identified defendant's roommate's car as the one he had seen that night.

There was medical evidence that before her death, Robyn had been put in a cold, oxygen-deprived environment, such as an ice cream freezer. There was evidence of a rape, and there was evidence of saliva deposited by a nonsecretor on the victim's genital area and nipple. The victim was a secretor; defendant, like only 20 percent of the population, was not. The cause of death was asphyxia complicated by blunt force trauma to the head. The coroner was of the opinion that Robyn died when her head struck the concrete floor of the flood control channel.

Defendant spoke to the police on the night after the crime, and said he had seen Robyn the day before about 6 p.m. He said he left her about that time, and continued his route. He said his truck had not been operating properly, and he had been compelled to take a circuitous route home via the Arrow Highway, to avoid hills. He said he stopped for gas at an off-brand station on the Arrow Highway. He explained that he spent the evening watching television and dozing, and that when he woke around midnight, he borrowed his roommate's car to go get something to eat at the Sambo's restaurant on Indian Hill Boulevard in Claremont. A waitress who worked at that restaurant and was familiar with defendant testified that he had not been there that night.

A Los Angeles County jail inmate testified that defendant told him he had offered a little girl some ice cream or candy to get her to go around and sell his wares with him. Defendant said he was being charged with the murder of this little girl.

2. Defense Case

Defendant testified in his own behalf. He confirmed that he had been in the Baldwin Park neighborhood on September 28, 1982. His ice cream truck developed engine trouble in midafternoon. He saw Robyn around 6:15, when she asked him for candy. He often gave free candy or ice cream to poor children. He left her by the Geddes School, and continued on his route, making a few more sales. Then he headed home, traveling between five and seven miles per hour. He did not go home via Arrow Highway, as he admitted he had previously told the police, but by another route. He bought gas at a Shell station on Azusa Avenue, not at Beverly Allen's Sears U.S.A. station. It was stipulated that a receipt for gas bought at this Shell station on that date was found in his ice cream truck.

Defendant testified that he returned home around 9 p.m., and when his roommate awoke him around midnight, asked to borrow the roommate's car. He pulled the car out, stopped near his truck for cigarettes, then went to the Sambo's restaurant on Central Avenue in Chino. He denied telling the police he had gone to the Sambo's on Indian Hill. He stopped at a gas station to buy gas for the next day, when he planned to ask for the loan of the car again. At the gas station, a woman approached him and asked for a ride, which he provided. This woman testified, confirming that she received a ride from defendant about 1:50 a.m.

There was some evidence that it would have been difficult to pump gas into defendant's truck from the position in which Mrs. Allen observed it. There was also evidence that the lighting conditions at the place Mr. Zimmerman observed the turquoise car would tend to distort colors. A defense medical expert was of the opinion that the victim had died before she was thrown into the channel, between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m., and that the cause of death was strangulation. He said there was no evidence that the child had been in a cold, oxygen-deprived environment before her death.

There was no physical evidence of the victim's presence in defendant's truck. There was also no physical evidence of defendant's presence in the truck, which was extremely dirty.

B. Penalty Phase Evidence

The prosecutor presented evidence that when defendant was 20 years old, he violently assaulted and sexually abused 2 boys, then ages 10 and 9. He threatened to kill the children, and forced one to dig a grave. Defendant was convicted of lewd conduct with a child for these activities. Another witness described defendant's crimes against her; he offered to help her after she experienced car trouble, but instead beat her, raped her, and took her valuables. He held a knife to her back and spoke of disposing of her body. He was convicted of rape, robbery and kidnapping.

Both witnesses spoke of their humiliation, rage and fear after these traumatic events.

Evidence was also presented of defendant's convictions for the armed rape of a 14-year-old girl, for a later offense of kidnap and rape of an adult woman, and for possession of a firearm by an ex-felon.

Defendant's parole officer testified that defendant told him he was unemployed. The officer testified that he would not have permitted defendant to be employed as an ice cream truck driver in light of his history of violent sexual offenses against children.

Defendant presented no evidence and did not argue to the jury.

II. GUILT ISSUES
A. Faretta Claims
1. Alleged Interference With Defendant's Right of Self-representation.

Defendant claims that the court so interfered with his Sixth Amendment right under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (hereafter Faretta ) to represent himself, that the entire judgment must be reversed. We disagree.

Jury selection began on January 7, 1985. The issue of who would represent defendant and under what terms, however, had occupied a significant part of the pretrial proceedings.

From the date of the arraignment on November 23, 1982, until a conflict of interest was declared on July 7, 1983, defendant was represented by the public defender. On the latter date the court relieved the public defender and appointed Attorney David J. Daugherty to represent defendant. On ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
232 cases
  • People v. Fayed
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 2020
    ...phase. ( People v. Leonard , supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 1407, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973 ; see People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1057, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 846 P.2d 756.) The Attorney General does not dispute that the comments in this regard were improper.Nevertheless, even thou......
  • People v. Nash, A123128 (Cal. App. 12/18/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2009
    ...People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 443; People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 757.) No misconduct was committed. (People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1059.) Accordingly, the judgment is We concur: Marchiano, P. J. Banke, J. 1. In fact, in his argument that the flight instructio......
  • People v. Dworak
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 15, 2021
    ...629, 22 P.3d 392 ; People v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 855, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152 ; People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1067–1068, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 846 P.2d 756, revd. on another ground sub nom. 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 204 Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 114 S......
  • People v. Shazier
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 18, 2014
    ...27, 33 P.3d 450 ; People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 137, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 954 P.2d 990 ; People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1057, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 846 P.2d 756.) But that is not a plausible interpretation of the prosecutor's remarks here.In his testimony, defendant had s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Trial defense of dui in California
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...v. Jones (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 358. Asking jurors to view a crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct. People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1017, 1057. In People v. Shazier (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 520 REVIEW GRANTED—Docket No. S208398), the prosecutor told jurors in closing argument t......
  • Opening statement
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...describe a party or a party’s actions. People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 107, 168, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 106; People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal. 4th 1017, 1059, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174. PR A CTICE TIP Do not interrupt unless it is necessary. The line between argument, on the one hand, and comment......
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 842. The prosecutor may not ask the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim. People v. Stansbury (1993) 4 Cal. 4th 1017, 1057, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 174. It is misconduct to ask the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim and imagine his or her fright ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 420, §21:40 Stanphill, People v. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 61, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 643, §9:130 Stansbury, People v . (1993) 4 Cal. 4th 1017, 17 Cal. Rptr. 174, §§5:80, 5:100, 21:150 Stanton, City of v. Cox (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1557, 255 Cal. Rptr. 682, §4:170 Staples v. Hoef......
  • 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