People v. Steskal

Citation277 Cal.Rptr.3d 604,11 Cal.5th 332,485 P.3d 1
Decision Date29 April 2021
Docket NumberS122611
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Maurice Gerald STESKAL, Defendant and Appellant.

Gilbert Gaynor, Santa Barbara, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Crowell & Moring, Michelle Gillette, Mina Nasseri-Asghar, Nicole Ambrosetti and Tiffanie McDowell, Irvine, for Mental Health America and National Alliance on Mental Illness as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Jakob, Holly D. Wilkens, Robin Urbanski, Christine Y. Friedman and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J.

A jury convicted defendant Maurice Gerald Steskal of the first degree murder of Orange County Deputy Sheriff Bradley J. Riches. ( Pen. Code, § 187.) The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that Steskal intentionally killed a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties (id. , § 190.2, subd. (a)(7) ), as well as an allegation that Steskal personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense (id. , former §§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court declared a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a penalty verdict. After a penalty retrial, the jury returned a verdict of death. This appeal is automatic. ( Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution evidence

On the night of June 11, 1999, Steskal was seen near the residence of his wife, Nannette Steskal, from whom he was then separated.1 Close to midnight, a neighbor of Nannette's heard a commotion in their apartment complex. The neighbor then saw Steskal outside smashing a piece of furniture against the wall and heard him slam a gate while cursing at the world and screaming that he hated everyone. The neighbor heard a woman trying to calm him. Steskal responded, "Fuck that, I have guns, I have ammunition."

Shortly after midnight, Steskal went into a 7-Eleven convenience store carrying a semiautomatic rifle. As he purchased cigarettes, he asked the clerk if she was afraid of his gun and told her it was to protect himself from the "fucking law." An Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) deputy, Bradley Riches, drove by the 7-Eleven in his patrol car while Steskal was inside. Apparently seeing Steskal's rifle through the glass front of the store, Deputy Riches doubled back while issuing a radio alert for other deputies to stand by. As Steskal completed his purchase, Deputy Riches pulled into the 7-Eleven parking lot with his overhead lights flashing. The clerk watched as Steskal walked out of the store and immediately began firing his rifle. Steskal shot Deputy Riches at close range, firing 30 rounds in total, then returned to his car and drove away. When first responders arrived on the scene, they found Deputy Riches still seated in his car. It appeared he had unsnapped his holster but had been unable to pull his revolver before succumbing to his wounds.

A criminalist testified about the bullet casings and other evidence found at the crime scene, identified photographs showing damage to the patrol car, and explained her efforts to determine the trajectory of the shots fired. The criminalist identified a photograph of Deputy Riches's body at the hospital and a pathologist described Deputy Riches's numerous injuries. An OCSD sergeant testified that the 7-Eleven where Deputy Riches had been killed was one of the few convenience stores open 24 hours a day and was therefore a regular meeting place for patrol deputies.

OCSD deputies apprehended Steskal a few hours after the crime as he and Nannette drove away from her apartment. In Steskal's car, deputies found over one hundred rounds of ammunition and a disassembled rifle later identified as the weapon used in the shooting. A blood screen found no drugs or alcohol in Steskal's system.

Steskal had other encounters with law enforcement in the months before Deputy Riches was killed. Approximately two and one-half months before the crime, a different OCSD deputy, Andre Spencer, stopped Steskal for a traffic violation and arrested him for possession of a small amount of marijuana and resisting an officer in the performance of official duties. During the stop, Deputy Spencer saw Steskal pound his hands on his steering wheel and became alarmed when Steskal exited his vehicle. Deputy Spencer drew his gun on Steskal, summoned additional deputies, and searched Steskal's pants and shoes for contraband. Deputy Spencer stopped Steskal for another traffic violation one month later. Deputy Spencer reminded Steskal to take care of his prior tickets and ended the stop without incident.

2. Defense evidence

Steskal did not deny shooting Deputy Riches, but presented evidence intended to show that he was acting under a delusional fear when it occurred. Steskal's sister and a variety of acquaintances testified that Steskal had been paranoid for many years and was particularly occupied by thoughts that law enforcement and government actors were following him and wished him harm. He had long kept an assault rifle that he slept with and carried with him everywhere. For most of his adult life, Steskal lived apart from others — on the roof of a shop where he worked, in a van, and in a small concrete bunker on an abandoned mining site owned by his brother-in-law. Even when living far from others, Steskal believed bad actors were seeking him out: He worked on an escape route from his bunker, wearing down a pickaxe as he tried to make a tunnel through granite, and ran through the woods looking for pursuers with blackberry juice rubbed on his skin to provide camouflage. In the months before the crime, Steskal spent much of his time living in a remote mountain camp. Although he was separated from his wife, he sometimes stayed with her. He believed her apartment was wiretapped and felt he was being monitored through her television. He was depressed and often talked about suicide.

The lay witnesses observed that Steskal's mental health deteriorated significantly after the two traffic stops conducted by Deputy Spencer: Steskal became even more consumed with thoughts that he was under surveillance and in danger; believed OCSD deputies were going to kill him; and made serious attempts at suicide. He also grew more distraught about his failed marriage.

Four defense experts detailed Steskal's family dysfunction, physical abuse from his parents and siblings, difficulties in school, drug use, and history of suicidal thinking, suspiciousness, and peculiar ideas. The defense psychiatrist, Dr. Roderick Pettis, concluded that Steskal suffered from chronic paranoia that had progressed to full-blown psychosis

after the traffic stops by Deputy Spencer — Steskal went from feeling the police were following him to fearing they would kill him. Dr. Pettis testified that at the time of the crime, Steskal was in a psychotic state and suffering from a delusional disorder.

B. Penalty Phase

The prosecution presented evidence of an incident that occurred 19 years before the crime, in which Steskal intentionally drove his motorcycle at high speed toward a police officer who had stopped him for speeding. Steskal nearly hit the officer. Deputy Riches's parents, Bruce and Meriel Riches, testified about their son's hard work, his desire to help others, and how they responded to his death.

The defense presented witnesses who described Steskal's kindness to others and an additional expert who summarized Steskal's background and testified that Steskal suffered from a delusional disorder, chronic depression, and schizotypal personality disorder

, a personality disorder on a continuum with schizophrenia.

The trial court declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 11 to one in favor of life without the possibility of parole.

C. Penalty Retrial

During the penalty retrial, the prosecution introduced much of the same evidence that was presented at the guilt phase. Witnesses described Steskal's behavior just before the crime, at the 7-Eleven, and during his arrest. The prosecution presented new evidence to show that Steskal attempted to destroy the T-shirt he was wearing during the crime, as well as evidence that Steskal shaved his moustache immediately after the shooting. In addition to the first responders and criminalists from the sheriff's department who had testified in the guilt phase, a paramedic testified for the first time about his efforts to save Deputy Riches's life and the moment of his death. The pathologist described Deputy Riches's injuries with the assistance of a life-sized mannequin that was pierced with rods to show the bullet wounds.

The prosecution again introduced as aggravating evidence Steskal's behavior during the motorcycle stop, as well as new evidence of his attempted escape from jail before the penalty retrial. The prosecution presented evidence that Steskal had accumulated contraband metal clippers and scraped away a portion of his cell wall that abutted a ventilation system leading to the roof of the jail. Steskal had also hidden strips of bedsheets in his mattress that were long enough to lower him from the roof of the jail to the street.

The prosecution again introduced victim impact evidence from Deputy Riches's parents, as well as testimony from Deputy Riches's best friend and three colleagues from the sheriff's department who described his positive outlook and loyalty. The witnesses conveyed the loss they and their families experienced when Deputy Riches was murdered.

The defense also largely mirrored the guilt phase, with identical evidence depicting Steskal's background, his deteriorating mental health, and expert opinions regarding his condition. Steskal's brother and sister testified in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • People v. Parker
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 19, 2022
    ...we consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an improper fashion." ( People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 350, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 604, 485 P.3d 1, citing People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1275, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 757, 281 P.3d 834.) Defendant......
  • People v. Tran
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 29, 2022
    ...as well as images of the victim while he or she was alive," ’ is constitutionally permissible." ( People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 369, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 604, 485 P.3d 1 ( Steskal ).) "We review the trial court's admission of victim impact evidence for abuse of discretion." ( People v......
  • People v. Morelos
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 11, 2022
    ...is meritless. (See People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97, 155, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 32, 493 P.3d 815 ( McDaniel ); People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 379, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 604, 485 P.3d 1 ; People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1012–1013, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726 ( Capers ); Peop......
  • People v. Morelos
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 11, 2022
    ...(See People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97, 155, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 32, 493 P.3d 815 ( McDaniel ); People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 379, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 604, 485 P.3d 1 ; People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1012–1013, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, 446 P.3d 726 ( Capers ); People v. Ghobrial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...the court to craft corrective instructions prior to the start of deliberations, the challenge may be preserved. People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 332, 360, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604. The proper remedy after a sustained objection is for the court to correct the attorney and order the jury to ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 827, §9:160 Stern, People v. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 283, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 479, §§7:70, 11:10 Steskal, People v. (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 332, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604, §§12:100, 17:100, 21:40, 21:90 Steven O., In re (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 46, 279 Cal. Rptr. 868, §19:40 Stevens, Peopl......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 774. The facts of these prior cases must be relevant to the validity of the expert’s findings. People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 332, 359, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604 (facts of prior cases assumed to be inadmissible when relevant only to show bias against the death penalty). Alth......
  • All physical evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...testimony depicting and describing the scene if the viewing may enhance the jury’s understanding of the issues. People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 332, 356, 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604. When the purpose of the view is to test the veracity of a witness’ testimony about his or her observations, t......
  • 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